[PATCH 1/6] emacs: move tag format validation to `notmuch-tag' function

[Dmitry Kurochkin]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:16:50 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon at MIT.EDU> wrote:
> Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jan 30 at  2:54 am:
> > Hi Austin.
> > 
> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:34:27 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon at MIT.EDU> wrote:
> > > One philosophical nit below, but not enough to hold this up.
> > > 
> > > Quoth Dmitry Kurochkin on Jan 28 at  8:41 am:
> > > > Before the change, tag format validation was done in
> > > > `notmuch-search-operate-all' function only.  The patch moves it down
> > > > to `notmuch-tag', so that all users of that function get input
> > > > validation.
> > > > ---
> > > >  emacs/notmuch.el |   12 ++++++------
> > > >  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/emacs/notmuch.el b/emacs/notmuch.el
> > > > index 72f78ed..84d7d0a 100644
> > > > --- a/emacs/notmuch.el
> > > > +++ b/emacs/notmuch.el
> > > > @@ -522,6 +522,12 @@ Note: Other code should always use this function alter tags of
> > > >  messages instead of running (notmuch-call-notmuch-process \"tag\" ..)
> > > >  directly, so that hooks specified in notmuch-before-tag-hook and
> > > >  notmuch-after-tag-hook will be run."
> > > > +  ;; Perform some validation
> > > > +  (when (null tags) (error "No tags given"))
> > > 
> > > Since this is a non-interactive function and hence is meant to be
> > > invoked programmatically, I would expect it to accept zero tags.
> > > Unlike the following check, this is a UI-level check and thus, I
> > > believe, belongs in interactive functions (even if that requires a
> > > little duplication).
> > > 
> > 
> > Agreed.  Though I would hate to add the same check to each tag
> > operation.  Perhaps this check can go to
> > `notmuch-select-tags-with-completion'?
> > 
> > This is not the main patch in the series.  So I think I would prefer not
> > to make v2 because of this issue.  If we come up with a good (i.e. no
> > duplication) solution, I will prepare a separate patch for it.
> 
> What about not giving any error for no tags?  As a user, if I delete
> the whole tags prompt including the +/- operator, that's a very
> explicit action and it's very clear what it should do (nothing).  I
> don't need Emacs wagging its finger at me for doing something with a
> clear meaning.

Sure, let's try it.

I am always hesitant to do changes like this to avoid boring discussions
on what is better.  I hope nobody would argue with this change :)

Regards,
  Dmitry