Re: Useless change in lisp.el?

["Andreas Röhler" <andreas.roehler@online.de>]

Am Montag, 26. November 2007 20:26 schrieb Stefan Monnier:
> > Should you not cling to much to that disputed change
> > and no one else defends it, I would appreciate much
> > seeing it reverted.
>
> Rather than argue abuot the change itself, just give us some use
> case where the new behavior is problematic.
>

Can't see any new behaviour with this change, that's
it.  AFAIU you introduced more lines of code and provision
for possible bugs not to fear before.

 ;; In case the beginning-of-defun-function uses the old calling
      ;; convention, fallback on the old implementation.
      (wrong-number-of-arguments
       (if (> arg 0)
           (dotimes (i arg)
             (funcall beginning-of-defun-function))
         ;; Better not call end-of-defun-function directly, in case
         ;; it's not defined.
         (end-of-defun (- arg))))))


Now you have the old implementation, called if
`(wrong-number-of-arguments'--what wasn't at the table
before--new implementation and the default as always:
Three instead of two items to watch.

If you want Emacs as extendable, it matters, how
the code is written. If you introduce things without
valid reason--that's my view still--it will be less readable,
people need more time to dig through.

Andreas Röhler