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

[Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>]

On Sat, Jan 25 2014, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote:

> 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.)


Well, I currently run notmuch via a wrapper anyway, I can make it expand
folder:foo to '(' folder:foo/00 or folder:foo/01 or ... folder:foo/ff ')'
;)


>> 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.

Yes, I am late in this discussion as I realized that just today. I
don't want to hinder progress there...

>
> BR,
> Jani.

Tomi