Quoth Adam Wolfe Gordon on Feb 17 at 7:22 pm: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 13:00, Austin Clements <amdragon at mit.edu> wrote: > > One general comment that affects a lot of things in this patch: I > > think you should use the same JSON parsing settings that > > notmuch-query-get-threads uses. ?Besides consistency and more > > opportunities for code reuse, using lists instead of vectors for JSON > > arrays will simplify a lot of this code without any drawbacks. > > I pretty much agree. The only reason I stuck with alists was, as you > mention below, to be compatible with certain mail functions. Given the > things you've pointed out, I think the small hassle of making those > work with plists is worthwhile, so I'll give it a go. > > Clarification on a couple of things follow, otherwise I'll make all > these changes for the next version. > > >> + ? ? (goto-char (point-max))) > >> + > >> + ? ? ?(let ((from (cdr (assq 'From original-headers))) > >> + ? ? ? ? (date (cdr (assq 'Date original-headers))) > >> + ? ? ? ? (start (point))) > >> + > >> + ? ? (insert "From: " from "\n") > >> + ? ? (insert "Date: " date "\n\n") > > > > Sorry; I'm having trouble following the diff. ?What are the inserts > > for? > > The function message-cite-original cites an original message, which is > in the marked region. It assumes the headers of the original message > will be part of the marked region, but the only ones it actually uses > are From and Date. > > This could probably use a comment in the code.
Ah, okay. Is this how it generates the citation line? Could definitely do with a comment. > >> + ? ? (push-mark) > > > > It's unfortunate that message-cite-original depends on the mark. > > Since you're about to push the mark for the user anyway, maybe this > > should be a set-mark so that only one mark gets pushed? > > Probably the right thing to do. > > >> + ? ? (goto-char start) > >> + ? ? ;; Quote the original message according to the user's configured > >> style. > >> + ? ? (message-cite-original)))) > > > > message-cite-original-without-signature? > > Perhaps it should be configurable (notmuch-reply-cite-function or > somesuch). I believe message-cite-original matches the behavior of the > old reply, which didn't strip signatures, but I don't have strong > feelings either way. We should probably stick with the original behavior, at least for now. I just noticed that message-cite-original calls mml-quote-region. How is it that we don't wind up double-quoting MML tags with this change?