On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:31:03 -0500, Austin Clements <amdra...@mit.edu> wrote: > Quoth Jani Nikula on Dec 12 at 1:10 am: > > On Dec 12, 2011 12:56 AM, "Austin Clements" <[1]amdra...@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > > Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Dec 12 at 2:00 am: > > > > Hi Jani. > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:48:20 +0200, Jani Nikula <[2]j...@nikula.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Let notmuch-poll-script be a function as well as a string. Make > > default > > > > > value nil instead of an empty string, but allow "" for backwards > > > > > compatibility. Add a notmuch poll function to call "notmuch new" > > using the > > > > > configured notmuch-command. > > > > > > > > > > This allows taking better advantage of the "notmuch new" hooks from > > emacs > > > > > without intermediate scripts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was just thinking about working on this myself :) > > > > > > > > I think a better solution would be to allow running a command with > > > > arguments. Creating a elisp function just to run a command with some > > > > parameters feels wrong. This way we would have to add another > > function > > > > each time we want to add another argument. > > > > > > This seems a little awkward to me, too, though perhaps it's the best > > > way. Other approaches to consider include accepting a list for > > > notmuch-poll-script (e.g., ("notmuch" "new")) or leaving it as a > > > string but treating it as a shell command so "notmuch new" would Just > > > Work. Personally, I think the latter is the most intuitive, but it > > > would be worth looking at how other customizable external commands are > > > done in Emacs. > > > > > > A function seems powerful, but also like overkill. Can you give a use > > > case for a function that wouldn't be more easily solved by one of the > > > above approaches? > > > > The only reason I had for using a function was running notmuch using > > notmuch-command. Any ideas how to do that with the Just Works approach? > > Oh, I see. I'd missed that. > > So here's another idea, prefaced with a rant. > > It's bothered me for a long time that notmuch-emacs didn't just know > by default how to check for new mail. What MUA doesn't know how to > check for new mail? Why does a new user of notmuch have to tell it > how to check for new mail? Of course, this *had* to be configured > before because everyone had their own way of checking for new mail. > Hooks eliminate this unnecessary flexibility and make "notmuch new" > the one true way to check for new mail---as it ought to be---and in > turn make the notmuch-poll-script variable obsolete. > > So, what about changing the default "" setting of notmuch-poll-script > from meaning "do nothing and be useless" to meaning "run notmuch new > (using notmuch-command)"? It will then automatically do the right > thing for new users, while still being backward-compatible and > allowing an escape hatch for bizarre situations.
Fine with me. AFAIK no one has asked for using custom functions for notmuch-poll-script, so adding a sane default may be the simplest and the best option. Regards, Dmitry _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch