From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eric M. Ludlam" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re[2]: Enhancement suggestion: prin1 extension mechanism Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:47:21 -0400 Message-ID: <200809141547.m8EFlLIO006288@projectile.siege-engine.com> References: <200809110325.m8B3PYFE031034@projectile.siege-engine.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1221407261 26467 80.91.229.12 (14 Sep 2008 15:47:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:47:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 14 17:48:37 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ketq1-0005Aw-BM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:48:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41639 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ketp0-0003lO-IJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:47:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ketov-0003jl-HW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:47:29 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ketou-0003iF-Do for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:47:28 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41106 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ketou-0003i2-5h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:47:28 -0400 Original-Received: from static-71-184-83-10.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([71.184.83.10]:46718 helo=projectile.siege-engine.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ketoq-0004CP-2i; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:47:24 -0400 Original-Received: from projectile.siege-engine.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by projectile.siege-engine.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m8EFlLWB006290; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:47:21 -0400 Original-Received: (from zappo@localhost) by projectile.siege-engine.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id m8EFlLIO006288; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:47:21 -0400 In-reply-to: (rms@gnu.org) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:103878 Archived-At: >>> "Richard M. Stallman" seems to think that: >I have two questions: > >* Why have cedet-edebug-prin1-to-string >construct a function definition rather than >scan the list cedet-edebug-prin1-extensions directly? I wrote that a long time ago, and don't remember why I chose that. It was likely to make it faster by embedding everything into a cond statement, though I didn't do any profiling. >* Would it make sense to define the conditions in a more structured >(and thus, less general and more predictable) way? >For instance, could it fit naturally into the way EIEIO defines a class? All of EIEIO is supported by a single addition to this feature. I also use it for other data structures that are not EIEIO classes. Eric