From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: RE: Making ielm behave like a shell (getting to previous commands using the up-arrow key) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 18:51:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <94c09a96-d51b-4ef2-a626-aaf04dd3431f@default> References: <87im91ys4m.fsf@web.de> <874kklyqi2.fsf@web.de> <87im90dq2s.fsf@web.de> <87mtyb32ud.fsf@web.de> <87k0teo8f6.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39699"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: Michael Heerdegen , help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 19 03:52:00 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1kqSLg-000AEB-0m for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 03:52:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40842 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kqSLf-0006bt-25 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:51:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51308) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kqSL4-0006bZ-De for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:51:22 -0500 Original-Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:53344) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kqSL2-0006lO-NJ for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:51:22 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BJ2pILk162539; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 02:51:18 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=ZZKAlx2Xma8zgH1wqEOJlSdznPXip8I3g4avyEtquX4=; b=nsGz+5oAH/WxQ6ntVvBGbdGuMV0Mw+eFkcaDxSmhJPke96jETMXI35jRAJLkJpVnG/AG dIzIqfvmHAXYrmGLGFa+JH/jghs5J9yiuZw2C1iTzmlTVY37R+Da2xB53I5+beOzuLYw FUyeMzji47T/vyGiuQNfpOh0rRbB9G9XhSDGrpdjzoYKyTTco3BKbYzkvLDt1jPtVbNs luBMaJIGSBF/ne6T7NDNe8sXgKe+JLisomJXg0AykC53NQ9hSMRwgnrPf33R4laSZjjA vmC1nleqXAnj+P6BiAvl7h3X2NyNq+TgQgVynFRxWmknDzJQVPDQWH2YxU3iqyghDCyU /w== Original-Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35h8xqr09c-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 19 Dec 2020 02:51:17 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0BJ2kJo2120712; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 02:51:17 GMT Original-Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35h6mrk80k-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 19 Dec 2020 02:51:17 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0016.oracle.com (abhmp0016.oracle.com [141.146.116.22]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0BJ2pGIH006755; Sat, 19 Dec 2020 02:51:16 GMT In-Reply-To: <87k0teo8f6.fsf@web.de> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5071.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9839 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012190015 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9839 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012190015 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=156.151.31.86; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=userp2130.oracle.com X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:126549 Archived-At: > It's debatable how large defuns should be. In the Emacs sources, a lot > of them could be split or refactored indeed. What we have is the result > of a development. In the repositories, small changes are preferred and > are better traceable with version control systems, and refactoring is an > unrewarding job that even messes git history. As a consequence, defuns > tend to grow. I guess that is one side of the phenomenon called "bit > rotting". >=20 > The other side is that what one might consider as an ideal size of > defuns (or "factors") in his code might vary with your familiarity and > experience with the language and the project. Experienced people might > find relatively large units ok that would be not acceptable for somebody > for whom working with that language is not daily business. All good points. For the last bit: familiarity with the language, yes. But even familiarity with the particular code can make a difference. Understandability and changeability are affected by function def size, and even library size generally. But the structure and complexity of the code can make an even bigger difference. E.g., a long function def that's simple, clean and straightforward might well be easier to deal with than a set of small functions that are not so clean and clear but that have equivalent behavior. It all depends...