Austin Clements <amdragon at MIT.EDU> writes:
> folder: could work the way I suggested (simply the path to the file,
> with {cur,new} stripped off).
Hmm, so would notmuch try to guess whether or not it's dealing with a
maildir++ tree, and if so convert folder:foo to a search of .foo, and/or
folder:foo/bar to .foo.bar? Or would the user just need to know to say
folder:.foo and folder:.foo.bar?
And if we're only planning special treatment for for maildir-like
stores, then I wonder if the term should just be maildir:?
Though folder: would make more sense if the long-term goal was to have a
"DTRT" term. But in that case, I wonder if it might eventually be
expected to support mixed trees, i.e. say a tree containing maildir++
and mh subdirs, and if so, how that should be handled.
> many shells support "**" for recursive path matching and people are
> already quite familiar with glob patterns for paths, so why not simply
> adopt this?
rsync too.
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
