On Thu, Apr 05 2012, Peter Wang <novalazy@gmail.com> wrote:
> +test_begin_subtest "Set string value"
> +notmuch config set foo.bar baz
> +test_expect_equal "$(notmuch config get foo.bar)" "baz"
> +
> +test_begin_subtest "Set list value"
> +notmuch config set foo.list xxx "yyy yyy" "zzz zzz"
> +test_expect_equal "$(notmuch config get foo.list)" "\
> +xxx
> +yyy yyy
> +zzz zzz"

I find it slightly strange to use non-existent fields here, but I also
don't see that it hurts anything either.  At least at the moment.
Another option would be to use an existing field, and change it back
when you're done.

jamie.