From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D8E1F4B4; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 21:55:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 21:55:24 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: Kyle Meyer Cc: meta@public-inbox.org Subject: Re: "extinbox" term - was: [RFC 4/7] lei: proposed command-listing... Message-ID: <20201228215524.GA32558@dcvr> References: <20201215114722.27400-1-e@80x24.org> <20201215114722.27400-5-e@80x24.org> <20201226112649.GB6226@dcvr> <87pn2urltv.fsf@kyleam.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87pn2urltv.fsf@kyleam.com> List-Id: Kyle Meyer wrote: > Eric Wong writes: > > > Eric Wong wrote: > >> +'add-extinbox' => [ 'URL-OR-PATHNAME', > >> + 'add/set priority of a publicinbox|extindex for extra matches', > >> + qw(prio=i) ], > >> +'ls-extinbox' => [ '[FILTER]', 'list publicinbox|extindex sources', > >> + qw(format|f=s z local remote) ], > >> +'forget-extinbox' => [ '{URL-OR-PATHNAME|--prune}', > >> + 'exclude further results from a publicinbox|extindex', > >> + qw(prune) ], > > > > I'm a bit iffy on "extinbox" It's supposed to be a short > > version meaning "either external index or a public inbox" > > > > However, it's the same length and only two middle letters > > away from "extindex" (short for "external index"). > > Fwiw my brain made the incorrect extinbox => extindex jump when first > glancing over the command names before reading the descriptions. What about just "external"? It could probably be extended to handle existing IMAP, JMAP, notmuch, mairix, etc... as search sources with query translation, even. > > Would "inboxish" be an appropriate term in place of "extinbox"? > > There's precedent with git using the terms "treeish" and > > "committish". > > Yeah, that seems okay. I think "ish" would certainly make it clear to > the reader that there is more going on while avoiding the issue above, > but I wonder if that's really much better than just using "inbox" in the > command names and making the descriptions state something to the effect > of "... or external index". At least from the standpoint of the search > UI, it seems natural to think of an external index as an "inbox", but > perhaps such an overloading is setting things up for confusion. I'm using inboxish/ibxish internally, at least. But now I'm thinking "external" would give us more flexibility w.r.t. future features.