From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Confused by y-or-n-p Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2021 09:34:12 +0000 Message-ID: References: <834kkcr1eo.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0t38g1z.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83czyvkts6.fsf@gnu.org> <87bleetirr.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87y2hhri3n.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83pn2tkfg8.fsf@gnu.org> <871rf7ippu.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83a6trg6mc.fsf@gnu.org> <83mtxqcauz.fsf@gnu.org> <83turva0y2.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9c8ltys.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Gregory Heytings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="37453"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (NEB 394 2020-01-19) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rudalics@gmx.at, stefankangas@gmail.com, Eli Zaretskii , juri@linkov.net To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 09 10:35:38 2021 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 1kyAeo-0009eu-Oy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2021 10:35:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52474 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kyAen-0005vy-QH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2021 04:35:37 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52282) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kyAdn-0004Qe-Bh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jan 2021 04:34:35 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:60873) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kyAdk-0000bC-4w; Sat, 09 Jan 2021 04:34:34 -0500 Original-Received: from sdf.org (IDENT:ghe@faeroes.freeshell.org [205.166.94.9]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 1099YEFB016031 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Sat, 9 Jan 2021 09:34:15 GMT Original-Received: (from ghe@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 1099YiYV024766; Sat, 9 Jan 2021 09:34:44 GMT In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=ghe@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:262791 Archived-At: > > Based on the experience with the new code, I agree with you that the old > behavior, while ad-hoc, was a fairly good middle-ground. But I think > it's valuable to work back from that old ad-hoc solution and try and > re-implement it in a more "conscious design" way. > > The end result will probably not be 100% identical, but it should help > us get a code we understand better, compared to the old code whose logic > was very much unclear. > > IOW, I think the right way to look at it is as a refactoring, which > clarifies the code and brings new alternative behaviors. > I fully agree with you.