Re: Contribution to SES (resend)

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>]

>> And a different default doesn't seem like a strong enough
>> justification either.  You can easily add >v to your uses if you prefer it.

> OK, would you mind if there was some customizable variable
> ses-range-default-flags to hold a list of flags to copy by default to
> minibuffer when you insert a range. I really hate the <^ direction, and
> I find it painful to type every time this >v flag as you suggest.

Fine by me, as long as it only affects the function that inserts the
"(ses-range ...)" string.
Of course, maybe we could change the default ordering of ses-range.
IIUC it was chosen arbitrarily (the result of the implementation rather
than of design, AFAICT) and I expect that very few users of ses-range
depend on this ordering.

>>> Does the compiler factorize code well ?
>> It doesn't.  And if you use #N=...#N# to make cyclic code, it will
>> happily loop forever.
> I am not perverse enough (yet) to make any cyclic code for sure, just
> code factorization to diminish memory footprint of functions. Saving
> memory is not too bad an idea. Isn't it ? 

> Or, in other words, what is the alternative proper way that you propose
> to save the same amount of memory without the #N= & #N# constructs.

Using #N=..#N# in code won't save memory because the byte-compiler will
treat each #N# as a separate copy.  In your case, you used it inside
data rather than inside code, so it's less harmful and it does
save memory.  But in your particular situation, the use of `case' lets
you share the code just as easily.

> Yes, I did not expect that you would find them any better.  My question
> was rather whether adding them would be any worse ?

No, it'd be OK.


        Stefan