When moving between message in a tree or show buffer, the message at
point is marked as read. Likewise when creating such a buffer, then
the message that is initially at point is supposed to be marked as
read as well.
The latter worked for `notmuch-show' but not for `notmuch-tree'.
Press "RET" or "M-RET" in a search buffer to observe these behaviors.
In both cases the marking is supposed to be done by the function
`notmuch-show-command-hook'. In the case of `notmuch-show' that
function is added directly to `post-command-hook'.
`notmuch-tree' instead adds the function `notmuch-tree-command-hook'
to `post-command-hook' and that calls `notmuch-show-command-hook',
in the respective show buffer, but of course only if that exists.
Because the tree buffer is created asynchronously, the show buffer
doesn't exist yet by the time the `post-command-hook' is run, so
we have to explicitly run `notmuch-tree-command-hook' once the
show buffer exists.
The show buffer is created when `notmuch-tree-goto-and-insert-msg'
calls `notmuch-tree-show-message-in'. `notmuch-tree-process-filter'
is what finally brings us here.
This is more efficient than notmuch-show-only-matching-messages, since
we do not parse the potentially large thread structure to find a
single message.
This is only a partial fix for notmuch-tree view, because displaying
the thread structure in the tree-mode window still crashes on long
threads. It is however enough to make unthreaded view handle long
threads.
- declare-function notmuch-unthreaded lacked file name
- declare-function notmuch-search had differently named last arg
- note: check-declare-directory did not complain about that
- declare-function notmuch-search-show-thread without nil
- some functions declared to be in different file than those
existed ("notmuch" -> "notmuch-lib")
- some related function/declare lines were (/are now) wider than
80-columns; added line breaks (and proper indentation) there
When called from code, then this function returns non-nil when the
message at point is a matched message. However it does nothing at all
to present that information to the user when it called interactively.
It is therefore safe to conclude that nobody is using this as a
command.
We need to load `cl-lib' at run-time because we use more from it than
just macros. Never-the-less many, but not all libraries required it
only at compile-time, which we got away with because at least some
libraries already required it at run-time as well.
We use `cl-lib' and (currently to a lesser extend) `pcase' throughout
the code-base, which means that we should require these features in
most libraries.
In the past we tried to only require these features in just the
libraries that actually need them, without fully succeeding. We did
not succeed in doing so because that means we would have to check
every time that we use a function from these features whether they
are already being required in the current library.
An alternative would be to add the `require' forms at the top of every
library but that is a bit annoying too.
In order to make sure that these features are loaded when needed but
also to keep the noise down we only require them in "notmuch-lib.el",
which most other libraries require, and in most of the few libraries
that do not do so, namely "notmuch-draft.el", "notmuch-message.el" and
"notmuch-parser.el". ("coolj.el", "make-deps.el", various generated
libraries, and "notmuch-compat.el" are left touched.)
To some extend this is a personal preference, but the preference is
strongly dependent on whether one is used to a language that makes it
necessary to use variables like this.
This makes it perfectly clear that we are first getting and then using
a "foo":
(use-foo (get-foo))
Sure this has to be read "inside out", but that's something one better
gets used to quickly when dealing with lisp. I don't understand why
one would want to write this instead:
(let ((the-foo (get-foo)))
(use-foo the-foo))
Both `get-foo' and `use-foo' are named in a way that make it very
clear that we are dealing with a "foo". Storing the value in an
additional variable `the-foo' does not make this any more clear.
On the contrary I makes the reader wonder why the author choose to
use a variable. Is the value used more than once? Is the value
being retrieved in one context and then used in another (e.g. when
the current buffer changes)?
The previous commit switched to lexical-binding but without dealing
with the new warnings about unused lexical arguments and variables.
This commit deals with most of them, in most cases by either removing
leftover bindings that are actually unnecessary, or by marking certain
arguments as "known to be unused" by prefixing their names with "_".
In the case of the functions named `notmuch-show-insert-...' the
amount of silencing that is required is a bit extreme and we might
want to investigate if there is a better way.
In the case of `notmuch-mua-mail', ignoring CONTINUE means that we do
not fully follow the intended behavior described in `compose-mail's
doc-string.
Doing so causes many new compile warnings. Some of these warnings
concern genuine changes in behavior that have to be addressed right
away.
Many other warnings are due to unused variables. Nothing has changed
here, except that the byte-compiler can now detect these pre-existing
and harmless issues. We delay addressing these issues so that we can
focus on the important ones here.
A third group of warnings concern arguments that are not actually used
inside the function but which cannot be removed because the functions
signature is dictated by some outside convention. Silencing these
warning is also delayed until subsequent commits.
`outline-minor-mode' treats comments that begin with three or more
semicolons as headings. That makes it very convenient to navigate
code and to show/hide parts of a file.
Elips libraries typically have four top-level sections, e.g.:
;;; notmuch.el --- run notmuch within emacs...
;;; Commentary:...
;;; Code:...
;;; notmuch.el ends here
In this package many libraries lack a "Commentary:" section, which is
not optimal but okay for most libraries, except major entry points.
Depending on how one chooses to look at it, the "... ends here" line
is not really a heading that begins a section, because it should never
have a "section" body (after all it marks eof).
If the file is rather short, then I left "Code:" as the only section
that contains code. Otherwise I split the file into multiple sibling
sections. The "Code:" section continues to contain `require' and
`declare-function' forms and other such "front matter".
If and only if I have split the code into multiple sections anyway,
then I also added an additional section named just "_" before the
`provide' form and shortly before the "...end here" line. This
section could also be called "Back matter", but I feel it would be
distracting to be that explicit about it. (The IMO unnecessary but
unfortunately still obligatory "... ends here" line is already
distracting enough as far as I am concerned.)
Before this commit some libraries already uses section headings, some
of them consistently. When a library already had some headings, then
this commit often sticks to that style, even at the cost inconsistent
styling across all libraries.
A very limited number of variable and function definitions have to be
moved around because they would otherwise end up in sections they do
not belong into.
Sections, including but not limited to their heading, can and should
be further improved in the future.
One should never bind unnamed commands in keymaps because doing that
makes it needlessly hard for users to change these bindings.
Replace such anonymous bindings with named commands that are generated
using macros and some boilerplate. Using macros is better than using a
simple loop because that makes it possible for `find-function' to find
the definitions. Eat your boilerplate--it forms character.
Admittedly this approach is quite ugly and it might be better to teach
the original commands to support different buffers directly instead of
requiring wrapper commands to do just that.
Never-the-less as a short-term solution this is better than what we
had before.
Since [1: f8bdba37] no key is bound to this command and it is
redundant because the behavior of `push-command' is identical
when called as a command.
1: f8bdba37d3
emacs: tree: remove binding for pressing button in message pane
Notmuch requires at least version 25 of Emacs now.
Adjust comments that previously referenced version 24 specifically,
even though they also apply to later releases. Remove documentation
and code that no longer applies.
- `mm-shr' no longer references `gnus-inhibit-images'.
This means that notmuch commands obey display-buffer-alist so the user
can customize how buffers show up.
It also permits the use of C-x 4 4, C-x 5 5 and C-x t t, available in
Emacs 28. For example, one can use C-x 4 4 M-x notmuch-jump-search RET
to open a saved search in another window rather than the current window.
Or in notmuch-search mode, C-x 5 5 RET to view the message at point in
a new frame.
notmuch-tree has custom buffer display logic, so bind
display-buffer-overriding-action to make pop-to-buffer-same-window
behave exactly as switch-to-buffer while that function is running.
Now that notmuch-tree-next-thread acts more like its notmuch-show
counterpart, let's update the binding to move to the next thread after
archiving.
Signed-off-by: William Casarin <jb55@jb55.com>
This introduces a new function called
notmuch-tree-next-thread-from-search which is analogous to
notmuch-show-next-thread. It will switch to the next or previous
thread from the parent search results.
We rename notmuch-tree-{prev,next}-thread to a more descriptive
notmuch-tree-{prev,next}-thread-in-tree to reflect the fact that it
only moves to the next thread in the current tree.
notmuch-tree-next-thread now switches to the next thread in the
current tree first, but if there are none, it looks for the next tree
in the search results.
This makes notmuch-tree feel more like notmuch-show when using the
M-Enter, M-n and M-p bindings.
Signed-off-by: William Casarin <jb55@jb55.com>
This variable will be used in a similar fashion to
notmuch-show-parent-buffer. It will be used to navigate between
threads from the parent search buffer.
Signed-off-by: William Casarin <jb55@jb55.com>
This function is being autoloaded using an autoload cookie, so it
shouldn't additionally be autoloaded using an `autoload' form.
When building libraries we don't actually load the autoloads file and
dropping the `autoload' form results in an error, which reveals a so
far unspecified dependency: `notmuch-tree' needs `notmuch-jump'.
Before this commit compiling (or even just loading) `notmuch-tree'
resulted in `notmuch-jump' being loaded because the former requires
`notmuch-lib', which autoloaded `notmuch-jump-search'.
The bug was that this dependency was not explicitly specified, which
we fix by adding the respective `require' form.
- The first sentence should fit on the first line in full. This is
even the case when that causes the line to get a bit long. If it
gets very long, then it should be made shorter.
- Even even the second sentence would fit on the first line, if it
just provides some details, then it shouldn't be done.
- Symbols are quoted like `so'.
- There is no clear rule on how to (not) quote non-atomic
s-expressions, but quoting like '(this) is definitely weird.
- It is a good idea to remember that \" becomes " and to take
that in mind when adjusting the automatic filling by hand.
- Use the imperative form.
- Arguments are written in all uppercase.
It's a bit weird to avoid having to write the "(setq ... )" more than
once, just because we can. In a language that uses '=' for the same
purpose we also happily use that once per assignment.
While there are no benefit to using just one 'setq' there are some
drawbacks. It is not always clear on first what is a key and what a
value and as a result it is easy to make a mistake. Also it becomes
harder to comment out just one assignment.
Most people who write lots of lisp tend to only sparsely use empty
"separator" lines within forms. In lisp they feel unnecessary and
since most files stick to this convention we get a bit confused
when there are extra empty lines. It feels like the s-expressions
are falling into pieces.
All of this is especially true between a function's doc-string and
body because the doc-string is colored differently, which visually
already separates it quite sufficiently from the code that follows.
Fixed emacs docstrings to be consistent. No functional change.
- removed some (accidental) indentation
- removed some trailing newlines
- added trailing periods where missing (some exclusions)
Starting with Emacs 27 the old `cl' implementation is finally
considered obsolete. Previously its use was strongly discouraged
at run-time but one was still allowed to use it at compile-time.
For the most part the transition is very simple and boils down to
adding the "cl-" prefix to some symbols. A few replacements do not
follow that simple pattern; e.g. `first' is replaced with `car',
even though the alias `cl-first' exists, because the latter is not
idiomatic emacs-lisp.
In a few cases we start using `pcase-let' or `pcase-lambda' instead
of renaming e.g. `first' to `car'. That way we can remind the reader
of the meaning of the various parts of the data that is being
deconstructed.
An obsolete `lexical-let' and a `lexical-let*' are replaced with their
regular variants `let' and `let*' even though we do not at the same
time enable `lexical-binding' for that file. That is the right thing
to do because it does not actually make a difference in those cases
whether lexical bindings are used or not, and because this should be
enabled in a separate commit.
We need to explicitly depend on the `cl-lib' package because Emacs
24.1 and 24.2 lack that library. When using these releases we end
up using the backport from GNU Elpa.
We need to explicitly require the `pcase' library because
`pcase-dolist' was not autoloaded until Emacs 25.1.
Add x and X binds to notmuch-tree for functionally that we have in
notmuch-show.
The notmuch-tree-quit binding is somewhat redundant, since it is
handled by notmuch-bury-or-kill-this-buffer which is bound to q.
Signed-off-by: William Casarin <jb55@jb55.com>
This functions removes some duplicate logic between
notmuch-tree-{next,prev}-matching-message
We do this because we will be adding some additional logic similar to
the notmuch-show-next-open-message function, and it will help if this
logic is all in one place.
Signed-off-by: William Casarin <jb55@jb55.com>
This function captures some common logic when jumping to matching
messages in notmuch-tree mode.
We also add a new return value (t or nil), that indicates if there was
a next matching message in the thread to show.
Signed-off-by: William Casarin <jb55@jb55.com>
We have shortcuts S and Z to let the user switch to Search view and
Tree view with the current search. Add U to let the user switch to
unthreaded view from the current search, and ensure that S and Z
switch from unthreaded to search and tree veiew respectively.
Tree mode allows the user to choose whether to use the split screen
displaying just the current message or a full screen displaying the
entire thread. As unthreaded mode is quite different in use the user
may want a different customisation for this mode.
It is likely that the user will want a different line format for
unthreaded mode from tree mode; in particular the thread structure
graphics are unnecessary in unthreaded mode.
Add a new customisable variable and set it to something sensible.
