From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: (featurep 'multi-tty) => t on Windows Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:24:43 -0500 Message-ID: References: <610112.22856.qm@web83202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <87fxks1uig.fsf@justinbogner.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1229163942 20222 80.91.229.12 (13 Dec 2008 10:25:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:25:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: mail@justinbogner.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 13 11:26:48 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 1LBRhv-0003VM-S6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:26:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50367 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LBRgk-00035Q-0T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:25:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LBRgc-00034V-RF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:25:26 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LBRgZ-00033b-Ru for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:25:25 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=42317 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LBRgZ-00033T-L4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:25:23 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:42933) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LBRgZ-00068C-Bn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:25:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LBRfv-0007I8-5O; Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:24:43 -0500 In-reply-to: <87fxks1uig.fsf@justinbogner.com> (mail@justinbogner.com) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:106869 Archived-At: > From: mail@justinbogner.com > Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:03:51 -0700 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > > And how exactly is > > > > (if (featurep 'foo) > > (something)) > > > > cleaner than the latter? > > It's clearer in intention, if nothing else. Unless "something" includes "foo" as a substring, I don't see how it is clearer. > If I understand correctly, > Juanma considers checking for the existence of a feature to be a cleaner > way of writing feature specific code than checking for some function > that may be an indication that such a feature might exist. The two > approaches are equal in lines of code, but checking for a function so > that ou may execute code that has nothing to do with that function is > uglier (though equivalently effective). Yes, that's what Juanma says, I just am not sure I agree.