bug#64185: proposal for new function: copy-line

[Zachary Kanfer <zkanfer@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1319 bytes --]

 > > The code becomes slightly more verbose this way, but is far easier to
read
> > and comprehend. It seems an extremely worthwhile tradeoff to me.
>
> Not sure how often users will read the code of duplicate-line.

Developers will. And it's easier to read with symbols.

On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:41 PM Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net> wrote:

> >> This might surprise you, but code would be more complicated with
> symbols.
> >> Instead of
> >>
> >>   (unless (eq duplicate-line-final-position 0)
> >>     (forward-line duplicate-line-final-position)
> >>
> >> it will be
> >>
> >>   (unless (eq duplicate-line-final-position 'old-original-line)
> >>     (when (eq duplicate-line-final-position
> 'first-copied-duplicate-line)
> >>       (forward-line 1))
> >>     (when (eq duplicate-line-final-position 'last-copied-duplicate-line)
> >>       (forward-line -1))
> >
> > The code doesn't need the (unless (eq duplicate-line-final-position
> > 'old-original-line) ... check. It can be only the two when cases. But
> > that's a secondary matter.
>
> I agree.
>
> > The code becomes slightly more verbose this way, but is far easier to
> read
> > and comprehend. It seems an extremely worthwhile tradeoff to me.
>
> Not sure how often users will read the code of duplicate-line.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1873 bytes --]