Stefano Zacchiroli <z...@debian.org> writes: >> I guess you could abuse the search term query by adding special search terms >> such as thread:yes or thread:no to override whatever the default setting is. >> A little ugly, especially if notmuch ever implements a "thread:" query type, >> but fairly easy to implement. > > I've thought about this as well, but initially ruled out for the reason > you describe: the risk of clashes with notmuch. But it just occurred to > me that nomtuch upstream is with us here in this thread! :-) > > David: what do you think? Is there a safe way to embed such an "option" > into a notmuch search string, in a way that it doesn't get in the way of > notmuch itself?
I'm assuming here that you're going to strip whatever pseudosyntax you use before passing to notmuch, in which case the main thing is to avoid clashes with notmuch-search-terms(7) (which, e.g. already meantions thread: :]). If you can stand the verbosity, then something like NOTMUCH_MUTT_OPTIONS=threaded subject:"search that returns whole threads" is probably safest. If you are thinking about a hypothetical notmuch compatible syntax for options then I suggest taking the discussion to the upstream mailing list. d -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
