Re: modularity, code for yourself and possibly others

[Emanuel Berg <moasenwood@zoho.eu>]

Tadeus Prastowo wrote:

> Rather than going off tangent now by talking
> about the extreme case, what about if we
> confine our discussion _for now_ to your
> specific case of dealing with your pet
> function `delete-blank-lines'?

It is not a pet function. I was unaware of the
existence of the function you mentioned. I have
replaced the supposed pet with the proper
function. Your demeaning style isn't
appreciated BTW.

> If you agree then let's say we put that pet
> function to its own file
> `whitespace-cleaners.el'. As of now, that
> file will require no other file. So, its user
> will need to require only that file if that
> user needs no other function of yours.
> Problem solved here.

The problem is perhaps solved for another
person wanting to test my software in an easy
and straightforward way. For me on the other
hand, the solution of narrowing down every such
instance would amount to not 116 Elisp files,
but to several hundreds! I have shortcuts to
most of them files [1]. But to navigate
a system with several hundred files, many of
them consisting of a single or but a few
functions, would be a total diaster for me,
while it would still be uncertain how many
other people would really use my stuff.
I.e., a lot of work for me, a crippled system
for me, to achieve an uncertain gain.
The primary goal is still to have a good system
for me, since I wrote it for my purposes.

> Now, let's enlarge the case a bit.
> Suppose now the user also wants to use one
> other function of yours in file `edit.el'.
> If you had engineered that function _and_
> that file properly, then the user would have
> no need to have your entire Elisp system.
> Problem solved.

Consistent demeaning style + plain
insults = *plonk*


PS. Your signature is still incorrect. DS.


[1] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/emacs-init/navigate-fs-keys.el

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573