On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:46:22 -0400, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> Quoth David Bremner on Sep 27 at  1:59 pm:
> > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:25:58 +0300, Ali Polatel <polatel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > The problem with their design is NULL return may both mean an error
> > > condition and "message not found". However, we already have a similar
> > > function which does not have such a flaw, namely notmuch_database_add_message().
> > 
> > So, I take there is no way to distinguish those two outcomes? That does
> > sound bad. Looking at the code for notmuch-new, it looks like the return
> > value of notmuch_database_find_message_by_filename is used without
> > checking it for NULL.  Austin, can you comment on that at all?
> 
> I'd be happy to distinguish these outcomes.  I did
> notmuch_database_find_message_by_filename the way I did only to be
> consistent with notmuch_database_find_message.  Since ndfmbf isn't
> entrenched yet, now is a good time to change it.

What about notmuch_database_find_message()? If we leave it as it is,
this will lead to inconsistency and if we change it, we need to think
about API breakage issues.

> The call in notmuch-new should check the return, though if it can't
> find the message at that point, something has gone terribly wrong.
> Segfaulting is never the answer, though.

Indeed, just not to step on each other's feet, are you going to write a
patch or shall I start writing one?

         -alip