On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:52:26 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins at finestructure.net> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:16:03 +0000, David Edmondson <dme at dme.org> wrote: > > There was no problem with the logic. The code in the two functions was > > almost identical, so I'd like to make any future changes in just one > > place. > > > > You didn't actually answer my question - is the logic in the new > > function correct? > > Honestly I didn't look too closely yet since I'm not convinced we need > the change at all. I would prefer to keep the functions separate. In > my opinion, enough special casing would be required that it wouldn't be > worth it, and it would make the code less clear.
Okay. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20120123/9dd6aeb7/attachment-0001.pgp>
