From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Antipov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: coccinelle patch suggestion Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:39:09 +0400 Message-ID: <4FEC506D.90408@yandex.ru> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1340887169 8238 80.91.229.3 (28 Jun 2012 12:39:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:39:29 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 28 14:39:28 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SkE0O-0004AV-7C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:39:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57738 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SkE0O-0004kJ-7Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:39:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59544) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SkE0G-0004jl-Ju for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:39:26 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SkE0A-0008GC-E7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:39:20 -0400 Original-Received: from forward5h.mail.yandex.net ([84.201.186.23]:52111) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SkE09-0008Fc-Uy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:39:14 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp2h.mail.yandex.net (smtp2h.mail.yandex.net [84.201.187.145]) by forward5h.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id A67E5D02CF1 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:39:09 +0400 (MSK) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1340887149; bh=fX/rO+hhyAmez+3udoSRu+q5nz4M6612qgaWmnHtIFI=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=PN4gB1G2AxpkIL3duywNZnfy4RJoolxlElsaADaXkYI9zkPMvhpk0IC8eZzD7Zjgs ZUP0gNoNBixdiwHQIam/lksk2ynI/6DdD9BAFLcxbgtF8v382h0XUXWhgpBtomv9yR cyd5l7FPTU8pyiJ0NlL51Kv09u8PUGDgOTCgx2Q8= Original-Received: from smtp2h.mail.yandex.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2h.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 8BF891700013 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:39:09 +0400 (MSK) Original-Received: from 213-148-21-55.gelicon.ru (213-148-21-55.gelicon.ru [213.148.21.55]) by smtp2h.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTP id d8K8qk6u-d9KKrCmO; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:39:09 +0400 X-Yandex-Rcpt-Suid: emacs-devel@gnu.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1340887149; bh=fX/rO+hhyAmez+3udoSRu+q5nz4M6612qgaWmnHtIFI=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=l1zCL5j7Fpnkh1NK5FEOt9nVkwvTzWikr7a69kNFINURR+5fsPkH76ZimmWwl4hNw KGnhQ65+QtL9CTfXD3h0Twa+EBGPgD30UfwQy/DXguYOkBhyZAeE0iwxoVWK8fNUea MoQRiQItn6YOCukpTeB16yr6bF3BPckIHZ7WWIJk= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 84.201.186.23 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:151265 Archived-At: On 06/28/2012 04:06 AM, John Wiegley wrote: >>>>>> Andreas Schwab writes: > >>> And EXFUN just adds an unneeded level of obfuscation that doesn't help code >>> readability. > >> It tells you that it's a Lisp function with N arguments. That's easier to >> read than when you need to count them. > > Also, it forms a meaningful parallel with DEFUN. When I read an EXFUN > declaration, I know that there's a matching DEFUN. This is not true of > everything other function that has a prototype. +10. Of course, it would be a toy task for coccinelle. But, IMHO, EXFUN makes the things clearer rather than obfuscating them. Dmitry