Re: [PATCH 0/5] lib: make folder: prefix literal

[Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25 2014, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:
>> Perhaps we need to have two prefixes, one of which is the literal
>> filesystem folder and another which hides the implementation details,
>> like I mentioned in my mail to Peter [1]. But consider this: my proposed
>> implementation does cover *all* use cases.
>
> I challenge that with my use case: my mails are arranged as follows: 

[snip]

> For me the current folder: works as I don't have collisions.

Fair enough, your use case would be *very inconvenient* with the
proposed changes to the folder: prefix, *regardless* of whether the leaf
cur/new is indexed and required or not.

(Very inconvenient, or practically impossible, as you'd have to include
all those 01..ff directories in your searches.)

> For me a folder: search which would just work as a prefix i.e. match
> anything under given directory hierarchy would work best.

Indeed. Your use case is not an argument in whether cur/new should be
included or not.

That "recursive folder prefix" suggestion is, I think, incompatible with
the requirements for the literal folder: prefix we've been considering.


BR,
Jani.