On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:40:00 +0000, Mark Walters <markwalters1009 at gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
I also think "no-exclude" or "no-excludes" would be more appropriate. It's not a command that people will likely use that frequently, so as long as it's well documented it will be fine. jamie. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20120131/45079e1a/attachment-0001.pgp>
