[PATCH v4 2/4] Introduce a generic tree-like abstraction for MIME traversal.

[Dmitry Kurochkin]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:55:34 -0800, Jameson Graef Rollins <jrollins at finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:45:46 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon at MIT.EDU> wrote:
> > +    /* True if decryption of this part was attempted. */
> > +    notmuch_bool_t decrypt_attempted;
> > +    /* True if decryption of this part's child succeeded.  In this
> > +     * case, the decrypted part is substituted for the second child of
> > +     * this part (which would usually be the encrypted data). */
> > +    notmuch_bool_t decrypt_success;
> > +
> > +    /* True if signature verification on this part was attempted. */
> > +    notmuch_bool_t sig_attempted;
> 
> I think these new variables make sense, and reflect the correct
> semantics, as you already mentioned.
> 
> I do, however, think the later variable should be called
> "verify_attempted" (or "verification_", or "ver_"?), instead of
> "sig_attempted", since verification is the complementary action on a
> signed part, just as decryption is for an encrypted one.
> "sig_attempted" somehow implies to me that one is trying to make a
> signature, not verify an existing one.
> 

I agree, verify_attempted seems to be consistent with decrypt_attempted.
Please, do not make it "ver_", it is easy associated with version.

I guess I prefer long clear names in general, do not mind pushing few
more buttons...

Regards,
  Dmitry

> jamie.
> _______________________________________________
> notmuch mailing list
> notmuch at notmuchmail.org
> http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch