python documentation

python documentation

[Jameson Rollins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 140 bytes --]

I just discovered this:

http://packages.python.org/notmuch/

I don't know who did this, but THANK YOU!!  I want to buy you a beer.

jamie.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: python documentation

[Sebastian Spaeth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 562 bytes --]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:26:29 -0700, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> I just discovered this:
> 
> http://packages.python.org/notmuch/
> 
> I don't know who did this, but THANK YOU!!  I want to buy you a beer.

I prefer the stronger type of beer. But I'll even take Budweiser :-).

Please ship in August to San Antonio, Texas when I'll be there for a
conference ;).

Seriously, you are welcome. I am lagging a bit behind changes in notmuch
(the get_filenames iterator comes to my mind). But I do like to deliver
my stuff with complete docs...

Sebastian

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: python documentation

[James Vasile]

notmuch dump includes '# TODO: implement "dump <filename>"' but it
appears to work already.  What's missing?

Thanks,
James

Re: python documentation

[Jameson Rollins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 406 bytes --]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:22:55 -0400, James Vasile <james@hackervisions.org> wrote:
> notmuch dump includes '# TODO: implement "dump <filename>"' but it
> appears to work already.  What's missing?

Hey, James.  Is this related to the python documentation somehow?  If
so, I'm not sure how.

If you're just referencing a completed TODO, you could definitely submit
a patch to remove it from the TODO.

jamie.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: python documentation

[James Vasile]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:33:19 -0700, Jameson Rollins <jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:22:55 -0400, James Vasile <james@hackervisions.org> wrote:
> > notmuch dump includes '# TODO: implement "dump <filename>"' but it
> > appears to work already.  What's missing?
> 
> Hey, James.  Is this related to the python documentation somehow?  If
> so, I'm not sure how.
> 
> If you're just referencing a completed TODO, you could definitely submit
> a patch to remove it from the TODO.
> 

Yep, just a completed TODO.  Patch below.

diff --git a/bindings/python/notmuch.py b/bindings/python/notmuch.py
index 8572612..8d11859 100755
--- a/bindings/python/notmuch.py
+++ b/bindings/python/notmuch.py
@@ -486,7 +486,6 @@ def main():
             print "\n".join([t for t in msgs.collect_tags()])
     #-------------------------------------
     elif sys.argv[1] == 'dump':
-        # TODO: implement "dump <filename>"
         if len(sys.argv) == 2:
             f = sys.stdout
         else:

Re: python documentation

[Sebastian Spaeth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 164 bytes --]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:01:15 -0400, James Vasile <james@hackervisions.org> wrote:
> Yep, just a completed TODO.  Patch below.

Fixed and pushed. Thanks.

Sebastian

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: python documentation

[Florian Friesdorf]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1401 bytes --]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:16:15 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian@SSpaeth.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:26:29 -0700, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> > I just discovered this:
> > 
> > http://packages.python.org/notmuch/
> > 
> > I don't know who did this, but THANK YOU!!  I want to buy you a beer.
> 
> I prefer the stronger type of beer. But I'll even take Budweiser :-).
> 
> Please ship in August to San Antonio, Texas when I'll be there for a
> conference ;).
> 
> Seriously, you are welcome. I am lagging a bit behind changes in notmuch
> (the get_filenames iterator comes to my mind). But I do like to deliver
> my stuff with complete docs...

Highly appreciated!

I updated http://notmuchmail.org/howto/ to point to notmuch instead of
cnotmuch, but I cannot tell whether the example there is still
up-to-date.

I think it is confusing that it has a different versioning than notmuch
itself and that it would be more intuitive if the current bindings on
pypi [1] would have the same version as the current stable release of
notmuch. If they would also work with older releases of notmuch, that
could still be indicated, as it is done now.

[1] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/notmuch

-- 
Florian Friesdorf <flo@chaoflow.net>
  GPG FPR: 7A13 5EEE 1421 9FC2 108D  BAAF 38F8 99A3 0C45 F083
Jabber/XMPP: flo@chaoflow.net
IRC: chaoflow on freenode,ircnet,blafasel,OFTC

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: python documentation

[Sebastian Spaeth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1337 bytes --]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:32:16 +0200, Florian Friesdorf <flo@chaoflow.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:16:15 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian@SSpaeth.de> wrote:
> > > http://packages.python.org/notmuch/

> I updated http://notmuchmail.org/howto/ to point to notmuch instead of
> cnotmuch, but I cannot tell whether the example there is still
> up-to-date.

Yes, the examples there are current and still working.
 
> I think it is confusing that it has a different versioning than notmuch
> itself and that it would be more intuitive if the current bindings on
> pypi [1] would have the same version as the current stable release of
> notmuch.

But that would require that the python bindings are actually updated to
the current API of notmuch :-). Because they currently are not. E.g. the
get_filename/get_filenames addition is still not included.

> If they would also work with older releases of notmuch, that
> could still be indicated, as it is done now.

As far as for testing current implementations with older notmuch
libraries, I welcome people to contribute patches to the documentation
because I certainly will not test all combinations :-).

To be honest, I don't even use the python bindings anymore, not that
notmuch proper is able to give me all I need (especially file names).

Sebastian

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: python documentation

[Florian Friesdorf]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1722 bytes --]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:57:26 +0200, Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian@SSpaeth.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:32:16 +0200, Florian Friesdorf <flo@chaoflow.net> wrote:
> > I think it is confusing that it has a different versioning than notmuch
> > itself and that it would be more intuitive if the current bindings on
> > pypi [1] would have the same version as the current stable release of
> > notmuch.
> 
> But that would require that the python bindings are actually updated to
> the current API of notmuch :-). Because they currently are not. E.g. the
> get_filename/get_filenames addition is still not included.

Is it sane to have python bindings that need updates or would a plain
wrapper of the notmuch script (that maybe needs less updates) be better?
I don't want to imply that this can be answered with yes/no, but more to
get a comparison of the two approaches.

Naïvely, I imagine there is a header file and the generation of the
python bindings happens rather automagic.

> > If they would also work with older releases of notmuch, that
> > could still be indicated, as it is done now.
> 
> As far as for testing current implementations with older notmuch
> libraries, I welcome people to contribute patches to the documentation
> because I certainly will not test all combinations :-).
> 
> To be honest, I don't even use the python bindings anymore, not that
> notmuch proper is able to give me all I need (especially file names).

Point taken, I don't use them yet, I might in the future.

-- 
Florian Friesdorf <flo@chaoflow.net>
  GPG FPR: 7A13 5EEE 1421 9FC2 108D  BAAF 38F8 99A3 0C45 F083
Jabber/XMPP: flo@chaoflow.net
IRC: chaoflow on freenode,ircnet,blafasel,OFTC

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: python documentation

[Sebastian Spaeth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 710 bytes --]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:03:01 +0200, Florian Friesdorf <flo@chaoflow.net> wrote:
> Is it sane to have python bindings that need updates or would a plain
> wrapper of the notmuch script (that maybe needs less updates) be better?
> I don't want to imply that this can be answered with yes/no, but more to
> get a comparison of the two approaches.

Invoking notmuch the script and piping the results? I wouldn't call that
python bindings anymore then. Also it is bound to be much more expensive
than directly interfacing libnotmuch.so.

> Naïvely, I imagine there is a header file and the generation of the
> python bindings happens rather automagic.

I wish it would be that easy. :-)

Sebastian

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: python documentation

[Aaron Williamson]

On 04/19/2011 04:01 PM, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:03:01 +0200, Florian Friesdorf <flo@chaoflow.net> wrote:
>> Is it sane to have python bindings that need updates or would a plain
>> wrapper of the notmuch script (that maybe needs less updates) be better?
>> I don't want to imply that this can be answered with yes/no, but more to
>> get a comparison of the two approaches.
> 
> Invoking notmuch the script and piping the results? I wouldn't call that
> python bindings anymore then. Also it is bound to be much more expensive
> than directly interfacing libnotmuch.so.
> 
>> Naïvely, I imagine there is a header file and the generation of the
>> python bindings happens rather automagic.
> 
> I wish it would be that easy. :-)

I've never actually used it, so I may be way off base, but would it be possible
to use SWIG (http://www.swig.org/) to automatically generate bindings when the C
library is updated, or at least provide a decent starting point?

Aaron