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 B6DA86DE1378 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 16:19:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.077 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.077] 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 Xhihx-X1ztTk for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 16:19:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [209.234.253.108]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42006DE100D for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 16:19:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (ool-6c3a0662.static.optonline.net [108.58.6.98]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79DA9F984; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:19:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 301AA1FF49; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 19:19:04 -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: <87vb89n83m.fsf@wondoo.home.cworth.org> References: <87y4d5q38i.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87vb89n83m.fsf@wondoo.home.cworth.org> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 19:19:04 -0500 Message-ID: <87poyhpzbb.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 00:19:08 -0000 On Mon 2015-12-07 18:37:33 -0500, Carl Worth wrote: > Can you envision a scenario where this would actually lead to a bug? > > It's meant to provide a convenience. It's clearly documented as "not an > actual status value", so, yes, no client code should ever be passing > that value into the library. The only place a client can pass the value into the library is in notmuch_status_to_string(), which is actually OK -- the library itself will be able to tell the client what the status means, even if the client didn't know about the status value itself. I could see some hyper-correct client saying "whoa, we actually got a status >= NOTMUCH_STATUS_LAST_STATUS; something must be horribly broken!" and bailing unreasonably, but maybe we can safely say "don't do that". 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? --dkg