No subject

[Jani Nikula]

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018, Matthew Lear <matt at bubblegen.co.uk> wrote:
> From: Matthew Lear <matt at bubblegen.co.uk>
> To: notmuch at notmuchmail.org
> Cc: Matthew Lear <matt at bubblegen.co.uk>
> Subject: [PATCH] Update date search syntax.
> Date: Thu,  1 Feb 2018 20:52:18 +0000
> Message-Id: <20180201205218.4368-1-matt at bubblegen.co.uk>
> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.14.1
>
> If searching using the date prefix and timestamps, each timestamp
> is required to be prefixed with an @
> Legacy syntax of <initial-timestamp>..<final-timestamp> without the
> date prefix is still honoured, only without the @ specifiers.
> ---
>  doc/man7/notmuch-search-terms.rst | 7 +++++--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/man7/notmuch-search-terms.rst b/doc/man7/notmuch-search-terms.rst
> index 6d2bf62a..b6e7079a 100644
> --- a/doc/man7/notmuch-search-terms.rst
> +++ b/doc/man7/notmuch-search-terms.rst
> @@ -124,10 +124,13 @@ date:<since>..<until> or date:<date>
>      The time range can also be specified using timestamps with a
>      syntax of:
>  
> -    <initial-timestamp>..<final-timestamp>
> +    @<initial-timestamp>..@<final-timestamp>

So I think I'd add the @ syntax in the DATE AND TIME SEARCH section,
maybe under a separate new heading, and just emphasize this here is
about the non-date prefixed thing.

BR,
Jani.
  
>      Each timestamp is a number representing the number of seconds
> -    since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC.
> +    since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC. A date range search using
> +    timestamps is also permitted without using the date prefix and
> +    @ specifiers, although this is considered legacy and pre-dates
> +    the date prefix.
>  
>  lastmod:<initial-revision>..<final-revision>
>      The **lastmod:** prefix can be used to restrict the result by the
> -- 
> 2.14.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> notmuch mailing list
> notmuch at notmuchmail.org
> https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch