On Fri, May 25 2012, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>> diff --git a/notmuch-client.h b/notmuch-client.h
>> index 19b7f01..337409f 100644
>> --- a/notmuch-client.h
>> +++ b/notmuch-client.h
>> @@ -36,6 +36,8 @@
>>   * these to check the version number. */
>>  #ifdef GMIME_MAJOR_VERSION
>>  #define GMIME_ATLEAST_26
>> +#else
>> +typedef GMimeCipherContext GMimeCryptoContext;
>
> I like the typedef idea, but I don't think we should overload
> GMimeCryptoContext like this.  If someone is reading through the GMime
> 2.4 code and sees this, they're going to assume that it's a GMime
> structure, go looking for it, find that it's only in 2.6 and be
> baffled.  Instead, how about providing a typedef to abstract *both*
> cases?  Something like
>
> #ifdef GMIME_MAJOR_VERSION
> #define GMIME_ATLEAST_26
> typedef notmuch_crypto_context_t GMimeCipherContext;
> #else
> typedef notmuch_crypto_context_t GMimeCryptoContext;
> #endif

Hey, Austin.  I briefly thought about this, but it seemed kind of heavy
handed given that I hope these ifdefs will go away in the
not-too-distant future.  Do we really have a lot of gmime 2.4 readers
that would not have access to gmime 2.6 documentation?  I'm pretty sure
that I would personally end up looking at documentation for both
versions.

But anyway, if this really is a concern, I guess it's not *that* much
effort to support a new typedef indefinitely to alleviate any potential
confusion.

Any other opinions?

jamie.