Re: [PATCH] python/thread: always return a string in get_subject/authors
Your commit message is inconsistent with your change; is your intent to return None or the empty string? Also, could you modify your commit message to say what those are? On May 9, 2011 3:06 AM, Anton Khirnov an...@khirnov.net wrote: ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH] python/thread: always return a string in get_subject/authors
On Mon, 9 May 2011 09:06:34 +0200, Anton Khirnov an...@khirnov.net wrote: Now None is returned when those don't exist, which is inconvenient to deal with. I'm not using the python bindings, but from a philosophical point of view, this change makes me a bit uncomfortable since it apparently merges two cases together, and makes an error (no Subject) indistinguishable from an odd situation (Subject of empty string). Or am I missing something here? All the best, David ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH] python/thread: always return a string in get_subject/authors
On 9 May 2011 08:20, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote: On Mon, 9 May 2011 09:06:34 +0200, Anton Khirnov an...@khirnov.net wrote: Now None is returned when those don't exist, which is inconvenient to deal with. I'm not using the python bindings, but from a philosophical point of view, this change makes me a bit uncomfortable since it apparently merges two cases together, and makes an error (no Subject) indistinguishable from an odd situation (Subject of empty string). Or am I missing something here? I see the the same issue. Servilio ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH] python/thread: always return a string in get_subject/authors
On Mon, 09 May 2011 09:20:41 -0300, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote: On Mon, 9 May 2011 09:06:34 +0200, Anton Khirnov an...@khirnov.net wrote: Now None is returned when those don't exist, which is inconvenient to deal with. I'm not using the python bindings, but from a philosophical point of view, this change makes me a bit uncomfortable since it apparently merges two cases together, and makes an error (no Subject) indistinguishable from an odd situation (Subject of empty string). Or am I missing something here? The question is whether this is really a problem. For a single message, it might make sense to distinguish between 'no header' and 'empty header'. But those aren't message headers, those are thread properties. And I'd argue that a thread always has authors and a subject (possibly empty). -- Anton Khirnov ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH] python/thread: always return a string in get_subject/authors
On Mon, 09 May 2011 17:13:10 +0200, Anton Khirnov an...@khirnov.net wrote: But those aren't message headers, those are thread properties. And I'd argue that a thread always has authors and a subject (possibly empty). The RFC says yes on the author, no on the subject. The only things guaranteed are From: and originating timestamp. So I'm not sure why subject should be guaranteed a string result and not, say, Cc. My sense is that Python users are prety good with testing against None, especially since (not ) == (not []) == (not None) == True. This change seems like it would end up producing more inconsistencies with the way you deal with headers, by producing special cases. --Jesse ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH] python/thread: always return a string in get_subject/authors
On Mon, 09 May 2011 11:23:16 -0400, Jesse Rosenthal jrosent...@jhu.edu wrote: The RFC says yes on the author, no on the subject. The only things guaranteed are From: and originating timestamp. So I'm not sure why subject should be guaranteed a string result and not, say, Cc. Apologies -- I realize now you were talking about threads and not messages, so I can't defer to RFCs. I still agree with the others, and about how python users would deal with it. But I see your point better now. Sorry to clutter. ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH] python/thread: always return a string in get_subject/authors
On Mon, 09 May 2011 09:20:41 -0300, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote: On Mon, 9 May 2011 09:06:34 +0200, Anton Khirnov an...@khirnov.net wrote: Now None is returned when those don't exist, which is inconvenient to deal with. I'm not using the python bindings, but from a philosophical point of view, this change makes me a bit uncomfortable since it apparently merges two cases together, and makes an error (no Subject) indistinguishable from an odd situation (Subject of empty string). Or am I missing something here? Hi there, This change makes me a bit uncomfortable too. 3 Reasons: - I believe users should be able to distinguish the case when someone uses an empty subject, and when someone doesn't specify a subject at all. - People have been writing code and breaking backwards compatability for such a small gain doesn't really seem worth it. - Testing-wise this is easy. Just test for if subject: on the returned value and you'll get both cases (empty and non-existing). But if people really want it, I won't object. Sebastian pgpuI8l9AZmPD.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
Re: [PATCH] python/thread: always return a string in get_subject/authors
On 05/09/2011 09:00 PM, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: On Mon, 09 May 2011 09:20:41 -0300, David Bremner da...@tethera.net wrote: On Mon, 9 May 2011 09:06:34 +0200, Anton Khirnov an...@khirnov.net wrote: Now None is returned when those don't exist, which is inconvenient to deal with. I'm not using the python bindings, but from a philosophical point of view, this change makes me a bit uncomfortable since it apparently merges two cases together, and makes an error (no Subject) indistinguishable from an odd situation (Subject of empty string). Or am I missing something here? This change makes me a bit uncomfortable too. 3 Reasons: - I believe users should be able to distinguish the case when someone uses an empty subject, and when someone doesn't specify a subject at all. I'm going to me too! this sentiment as well. Please do *not* conflate no-subject with subject-is-empty-string. If we leave them distinct, the caller is free to conflate them if they want. But if we conflate the two states first, there's no way for the caller to differentiate between the two if they want to. Thanks, --dkg signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
