On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:46:22 -0400, Austin Clements <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoth David Bremner on Sep 27 at 1:59 pm: > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:25:58 +0300, Ali Polatel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The problem with their design is NULL return may both mean an error > > > condition and "message not found". However, we already have a similar > > > function which does not have such a flaw, namely > > > notmuch_database_add_message(). > > > > So, I take there is no way to distinguish those two outcomes? That does > > sound bad. Looking at the code for notmuch-new, it looks like the return > > value of notmuch_database_find_message_by_filename is used without > > checking it for NULL. Austin, can you comment on that at all? > > I'd be happy to distinguish these outcomes. I did > notmuch_database_find_message_by_filename the way I did only to be > consistent with notmuch_database_find_message. Since ndfmbf isn't > entrenched yet, now is a good time to change it.
What about notmuch_database_find_message()? If we leave it as it is,
this will lead to inconsistency and if we change it, we need to think
about API breakage issues.
> The call in notmuch-new should check the return, though if it can't
> find the message at that point, something has gone terribly wrong.
> Segfaulting is never the answer, though.
Indeed, just not to step on each other's feet, are you going to write a
patch or shall I start writing one?
-alip
pgpDYe8vCsl7L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list [email protected] http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
