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 24F786DE02C9 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 07:55:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.079 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.079] 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 MB5_Grsy_rHu for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 07:55:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [209.234.253.108]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB5F6DE0217 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 07:55:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5E4A3F984; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 10:55:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 99E9A1FF49; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 10:55:25 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Carl Worth , notmuch mailing list Subject: Re: NOTMUCH_STATUS_LAST_STATUS problematic across additive library upgrades In-Reply-To: <87bna1ms58.fsf@wondoo.home.cworth.org> References: <87y4d5q38i.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87vb89n83m.fsf@wondoo.home.cworth.org> <87poyhpzbb.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87bna1ms58.fsf@wondoo.home.cworth.org> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 10:55:25 -0500 Message-ID: <87fuzdoryq.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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, 08 Dec 2015 15:55:31 -0000 On Tue 2015-12-08 00:22:11 -0500, Carl Worth wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07 2015, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> I note that it's exposed in the go bindings -- maybe it shouldn't be >> exposed in any of the bindings that can avoid exposing it? > > Quite likely. It's only there in C because there's no other way to know > the bounds for iterating over all possible values for a particular > enum. If other languages don't have this deficiency, then they shouldn't > need this silly thing. OK, so maybe the following patch should be applied. Perhaps someone who understands the go bindings better than i do can comment on it? The python bindings don't seem to include LAST_STATUS, so i think they're OK. --dkg diff --git a/bindings/go/src/notmuch/notmuch.go b/bindings/go/src/notmuch/notmuch.go index 0fff1ab..9f910cb 100644 --- a/bindings/go/src/notmuch/notmuch.go +++ b/bindings/go/src/notmuch/notmuch.go @@ -28,8 +28,6 @@ const ( STATUS_TAG_TOO_LONG STATUS_UNBALANCED_FREEZE_THAW STATUS_UNBALANCED_ATOMIC - - STATUS_LAST_STATUS ) func (self Status) String() string {