Quoth Mark Walters on Jan 31 at 11:40 am: > > Thanks for the review. Almost all of it (for all all the patches) I > agree with and will just fix but I do have a couple of queries. > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:17:32 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon at MIT.EDU> > wrote: > > Quoth Mark Walters on Jan 29 at 6:39 pm: > > > This option turns off the exclusion so all matching messages are > > > returned. We do not need to add this to show as notmuch-show does not > > > (yet) exclude. > > > --- > > > notmuch-count.c | 12 ++++++++---- > > > notmuch-search.c | 12 ++++++++---- > > > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/notmuch-count.c b/notmuch-count.c > > > index 63459fb..c88975e 100644 > > > --- a/notmuch-count.c > > > +++ b/notmuch-count.c > > > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ notmuch_count_command (void *ctx, int argc, char > > > *argv[]) > > > int output = OUTPUT_MESSAGES; > > > const char **search_exclude_tags; > > > size_t search_exclude_tags_length; > > > + notmuch_bool_t do_not_exclude = FALSE; > > > unsigned int i; > > > > > > notmuch_opt_desc_t options[] = { > > > @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@ notmuch_count_command (void *ctx, int argc, char > > > *argv[]) > > > (notmuch_keyword_t []){ { "threads", OUTPUT_THREADS }, > > > { "messages", OUTPUT_MESSAGES }, > > > { 0, 0 } } }, > > > + { NOTMUCH_OPT_BOOLEAN, &do_not_exclude, "do-not-exclude", 'd', 0 }, > > > > Maybe just "no-exclude"? "do-not-exclude" seems needlessly verbose. > > The reason I went for verbose do-not-exclude was to try and avoid the > double negative ambiguity: does no-exclude mean do-not-exclude or > do-note-return-excluded-messages. Possibly I am worrying needlessly, and > obviously I am quite happy to change.
Oh. Hmm. --no-exclusions? --unexcluded? --all? --include-excludes? Maybe --do-not-exclude is best.