From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: patch to emacsbug.el proposed..
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:46:55 -0400
Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
Message-ID: <E17mmfX-00079G-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <87hehaol77.fsf@computer.localdomain>
	<E17lefA-0003I7-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<87wuq5uu33.fsf@computer.localdomain>
	<E17mDgw-0002Ey-00@fencepost.gnu.org> <buoznuyle9e.fsf@mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1031194332 21751 127.0.0.1 (5 Sep 2002 02:52:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 02:52:12 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: deego@glue.umd.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Return-path: <emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 17mmkd-0005eh-00
	for <emacs-devel@main.gmane.org>; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 04:52:11 +0200
Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 17mnK7-0001jn-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Thu, 05 Sep 2002 05:28:51 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 17mmmF-0005Sa-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:53:51 -0400
Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10)
	id 17mmfa-0003ZG-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:46:58 -0400
Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10)
	id 17mmfX-0003YT-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:46:57 -0400
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 17mmfX-0003YC-00
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:46:55 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10)
	id 17mmfX-00079G-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 22:46:55 -0400
Original-To: miles@gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <buoznuyle9e.fsf@mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp> (message from Miles
	Bader on 04 Sep 2002 10:44:45 +0900)
Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:7502
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:7502

    I don't think just moving some inline code into separate function really
    deserves the term `complexity'; it probably even makes the code more
    clear.  Even if only one person ever uses the new function by itself,
    why not do it?

If we encourage him to expect this function to continue to work, in
effect it is part of the specs of Emacs.  I do not think it is worth
adding one function to the specs of Emacs for this.

Breaking this subroutine out of the code might be ok if it makes the
code clearer.  But if it is a subroutine, people should not expect it
to continue to exist next month.  Perhaps we will find a better way to
subroutinize the code.