From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7411E6DE00E8 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 03:37:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.007 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DHcFzeWdufIe for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 03:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8BA36DE00BD for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 03:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bhDkj-0006X1-9n; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 06:37:17 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 21168 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 06 Sep 2016 10:37:21 -0000 From: David Bremner To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: Fix count/search query destructiveness In-Reply-To: <20160905154806.4570-1-david@tethera.net> References: <20160905154806.4570-1-david@tethera.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.22.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 07:37:21 -0300 Message-ID: <87bn01iaam.fsf@zancas.localnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 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, 06 Sep 2016 10:37:26 -0000 David Bremner writes: > As discussed in id:147263183913.27784.12274024193186585889@mbp, the > current behaviour is destructive due to exclude handling. This makes > some natural code, including notmuch-reply, buggy. Mark points out on IRC that notmuch-reply doesn't use excludes, so it's not buggy just confusing. So the current documentation should be something like "the query functions are non-destructive, unless you use excludes". That makes these changes somewhat less urgent; I still think they're probably a good idea, since the current is not very nice, and a bit hard to document/understand.