From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F104476B9A for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:02:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.022 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, AWL=-0.223, BAYES_50=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c+b+G5hU0Ks0; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:02:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from yoom.home.cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B85476B97; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:02:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by yoom.home.cworth.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DE1F954C004; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:36:16 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Worth To: Ruben Pollan , notmuch@notmuchmail.org In-Reply-To: <87pr67ofz2.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> References: <20091126202347.GA16654@blackspot> <1260364206-344-1-git-send-email-meskio@sindominio.net> <20091209132446.GC23878@blackspot> <877hsv6hbo.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87r5qnol78.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> <87pr67ofz2.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:36:10 -0800 Message-ID: <873a09jt2t.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Added regress option to tags iterator X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:02:50 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:16:49 -0800, Carl Worth wrote: > One option is to just drop the "move_ " prefix. Then everything will be > a two-word function. So the new proposal is: >=20 > to_first > has_current > to_next >=20 > to_last > has_current > to_previous >=20 > get_current >=20 > Better? Looking back at this proposal now, (after a long delay), I found I didn't like it at all. With function names like: notmuch_threads_to_first notmuch_threads_to_next the missing verb in the name is really distracting. I ended up reading these names as if they were conversion functions. So I've gone back to preferring the names with the explicit verbs (even though quite long): notmuch_threads_move_to_first notmuch_threads_move_to_next Meanwhile, I also decided that _current wasn't adding anything to the names it showed up in, (we can never "get" anything other than the current item, so why qualify as "get_current"?). So I'm changing from "has_current" to "valid", and leaving "get" as it is. So the final proposal for iteration in either direction is: move_to_first valid move_to_next move_to_last valid move_to_previous get I've just pushed commits changing the existing functions (which allow only forward iteration) to use this naming scheme. I haven't added any of the reverse-iteration functions yet, so Ruben, if you'd like to do those within this scheme, that would be find. (Or we could wait until we have an actual use in mind for them.) Thanks, =2DCarl --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLlocL6JDdNq8qSWgRAngCAKCOC1FhXomVg/nqQhct0ChFEXj/HgCfRAoj wJS2YBSFaiEi3Teya+Du/UI= =l7qE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--