From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [External] : Re: Shrinking the C core Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 10:43:08 +0200 Message-ID: <87fs3fesir.fsf@dataswamp.org> References: <87ledwx7sh.fsf@yahoo.com> <877cpfybhf.fsf@yahoo.com> <873503y66i.fsf@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32763"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:WZDU0MzDN0AZ021pEFpR7FU7Zrw= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 15 12:28:08 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qh63R-0008Bg-Cy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 12:28:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qh634-0002KN-Cp; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 06:27:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qh4Q7-0002Qc-Ty for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 04:43:24 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qh4Q1-0005CX-Mf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 04:43:23 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qh4Py-0009CI-8N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 10:43:14 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Mail-Copies-To: never Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 06:27:40 -0400 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:310597 Archived-At: João Távora wrote: > Many other functions with a large amount of optional > arguments (completing-read comes to mind) would be much, > much easier to use with keyword arguments. Without them, we > find ourselves wondering about how many nils to sprinkle > before the argument we want to pass. Agreed, it is better with keyword arguments than a long list of nils because of optional arguments. But it is better yet to not have the functions take so many arguments in the first place, but to split them up and have the function name be more specific what is going to happen. Sometimes this just doesn't happen, it's life and I have a hard time seeing any situation (long list of nils for optional arguments vs. keywords) being a real problem to anyone? -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal