From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5B7431FAF for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 13:11:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hMnMqPMEMq1v for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 13:11:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86BB6431FAE for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 13:11:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so4144258bkw.26 for ; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com designates 10.205.122.73 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.205.122.73; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com designates 10.205.122.73 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.205.122.73]) by 10.205.122.73 with SMTP id gf9mr10235481bkc.96.1330981866892 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:11:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=Q1wPuHcV5+7ZbPXPiz49g0ROLpnu91MX4H39d6QL/gg=; b=kc9YNQBP5MHMR11G6Nia3Ft6U4+BlxC7RfGEcnGOK6KpMAPgNdoI5Wb0PkxW6zFvLE iZrcxhCwNuxdv/JRunV2iqIv/vwtPfPVKD8n3BZQOVPVO8FWJ5Iu0+klHCP9rKDgBFg2 KwbOJ6azaPxYRAAUR/msHAd+eGg5Md2zyuDNcKJnrBE3ozzZBjBUCA/fQ1BgRTOSHA4e LPM9dNgUxS7VpBiuCoZWsilz3APTsTavdA0CESC0GdELyfdDFTB0vjg+MNDU2abeL+ga vIHMUz9stm63uM5pcGaHhPImTE/qyHgvpZKlkV9fNGSsoVhL8BBt0lZ5oY43j8Ojpa2q 5DAw== Received: by 10.205.122.73 with SMTP id gf9mr8092294bkc.96.1330981866741; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([91.144.186.21]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x22sm27828976bkw.11.2012.03.05.13.11.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:11:06 -0800 (PST) From: Dmitry Kurochkin To: Jani Nikula Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] emacs: Pass a copy to notmuch-saved-search-sort-function In-Reply-To: References: <1330613059-5130-1-git-send-email-daniel@schoepe.org> <1330613059-5130-2-git-send-email-daniel@schoepe.org> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+288~g4b3af0e (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 01:09:38 +0400 Message-ID: <87zkbukb59.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 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: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:11:10 -0000 On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 22:55:54 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mar 5, 2012 5:43 PM, "Dmitry Kurochkin" > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:17:43 +0100, Daniel Schoepe > wrote: > > > On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:21:52 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin < > dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 21:24:38 +0100, Daniel Schoepe > wrote: > > > > > notmuch-saved-search-sort-function might destructively modify its > > > > > input (`sort' does that, for instance), so it should not be given > > > > > notmuch-saved-searches directly. > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > -1 > > > > > > > > I think we should require `notmuch-saved-search-sort-function' not to > > > > have side effects. Current documentation should be more clear about > > > > this. We need to fix `notmuch-sort-saved-searches' to copy the list > > > > before calling `sort'. But we should not do it in > > > > `notmuch-hello-insert-saved-searches' for any sorting function (which > > > > may not need this copying). > > > > > > My reasoning was that since sort is such a common function, many users > > > will probably use sort for their own sorting functions, not realizing > > > that it has side effects. This will lead to confusing behavior that's > > > not so easy to track down. > > > > > > Copying the list of saved searches when running notmuch-hello does not > > > seem be relevant to performance to me, since it's a) not called that > > > often and b) the list of saved searches will rarely exceed 30 elements. > > > > > > Hence, this way we can avoid some headaches for users who define their > > > own sorting functions at a negligible (performance) cost. Incidentally, > > > this is also how notmuch-hello did it before the user-defined sections > > > patches. > > > > > > > I do not buy the argument that we should help users who implement their > > own sorting functions but do not read documentation for functions they > > use. Apparently, those who implemented the `sort' function had similar > > ideas. And I do not think it is our job to add workarounds for it. > > > > An alternative (and IMO better) solution would be to allow customization > > of compare function used for sorting instead of the sorting function > > itself. > > Providing the customization of the sort function is more powerful than the > compare function. In the case of saved searches I can imagine people might > want to partially use the original order while sort the rest (e.g. > important ones first in predefined order, others sorted). Valid point. > In fact this also > allows dropping out some elements. And renaming. And changing the queries... > > (I had something like that in mind originally but then settled with just > capitalizing the important ones to show them first.) > All of these are invalid usages of `notmuch-saved-search-sort-function'. The function is meant for sorting only (hence the name). So the code might assume that the function does only sorting. I do not understand why we need such functionality (renaming, capitalizing, etc.). You can just rename the query itself if you want to. Should be easier IMO. But if we need such functionality, we should not misuse sorting function for it. We can add `notmuch-saved-searches' function which would return saved searches list (sorted, renamed and mangled in any other way). By default it would return `notmuch-saved-searches' variable as is. Regards, Dmitry > BR, > Jani. > > > > > Regards, > > Dmitry > > > > > Cheers, > > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > > notmuch mailing list > > notmuch@notmuchmail.org > > http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch Non-text part: text/html