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 45DAD6DE12DC for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 18:00:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, 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 jaaLI2AbI88F for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 18:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 857F96DE12D1 for ; Sun, 1 Oct 2017 18:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1dyp2B-0005hh-OM; Sun, 01 Oct 2017 20:56:35 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 19717 invoked by uid 1000); Mon, 02 Oct 2017 01:00:24 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Jani Nikula , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] cli/new: support // in new.ignore In-Reply-To: <87tvzp46nq.fsf@nikula.org> References: <5e252ac400993a2fecdbe8c0d739aa4d23d3de72.1504280923.git.jani@nikula.org> <87zi9i437c.fsf@tethera.net> <87tvzp46nq.fsf@nikula.org> Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 22:00:24 -0300 Message-ID: <87fub22wk7.fsf@tethera.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 01:00:27 -0000 Jani Nikula writes: >> >> One thing we eventually settled on in the query parser is that an >> opening '/' without a trailing '/' is an errror. But perhaps it's fine >> to take a more permissive approach here. > > I'm fine either way, I just chose to be permissive. > > So do I make the function void and drop the return values, or make it > check and return errors? I think I'd prefer to start strict, it's easier to become permissive later. > >> >>> + >>> + if (! state->ignore_regex_length) >>> + return FALSE; >> >> It's a nitpick, even by the standards of this review, but I'd prefer an >> explicit '> 0' check. > > ITYM (state->ignore_regex_length == 0) but ack. > yeah, thought of that after just after I sent it, but yes.