From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs 26.1 release branch created Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:59:51 +0300 Message-ID: <83zi9mbj2g.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83377mls4d.fsf@gnu.org> <87bmmazt77.fsf@udel.edu> <83zi9ukbj3.fsf@gnu.org> <20170916145112.GA22458@holos.localdomain> <83wp4yk7ve.fsf@gnu.org> <20170922165941.sirfk6qzfvdfw4i2@logos.localdomain> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1506110409 10745 195.159.176.226 (22 Sep 2017 20:00:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 20:00:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Mark Oteiza Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 22 22:00:03 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dvU7E-0002JA-9J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:00:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60809 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dvU7L-0007jq-Hy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 16:00:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57494) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dvU7F-0007jZ-R9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 16:00:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dvU7C-0007pP-SK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 16:00:01 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:47271) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dvU7C-0007pG-PO; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:59:58 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1070 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dvU7B-0001sz-RC; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:59:58 -0400 In-reply-to: <20170922165941.sirfk6qzfvdfw4i2@logos.localdomain> (message from Mark Oteiza on Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:59:41 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:218706 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:59:41 -0400 > From: Mark Oteiza > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > I ended up going back on what I said in d24ec5854 after thinking about what > I wanted to add, how the API should look, and going through some iterations > adding those functions. I think I'll leave it at those three functions for > emacs-26. > > In the interest of reducing the amount of (duplicated) code, especially as more > Lisp functions are added, I propose the following. I followed from your code > and from how it's done in xml.c, not sure if you have a particular reason for > doing it one way or the other. Hmm... I'm probably missing something, because I don't understand the rationale and the intent of your changes. You introduce a static function lcms2_available_p that is not used anywhere else in the file? And you removed lcms2-available-p without which Lisp code cannot know at run time whether lcms2 support is available or not? Where does this lead?