From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "simplifications" Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:49:37 +0100 Message-ID: <86oddqz9ge.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> References: <86ejem1pig.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <861wam1m8m.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <86sl32zaqy.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1195476599 9623 80.91.229.12 (19 Nov 2007 12:49:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:49:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Miles Bader To: "Juanma Barranquero" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 19 13:50:04 2007 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 1Iu64i-0005rN-54 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:50:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu64U-0000nf-EJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:49:50 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu64P-0000l9-9Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:49:45 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu64L-0000iW-V2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:49:43 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu64L-0000iL-Qv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:49:41 -0500 Original-Received: from pc3.berlin.powerweb.de ([62.67.228.11]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Iu64L-0004aq-0S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:49:41 -0500 Original-Received: from quinscape.de (mail.quinscape.de [212.29.44.217]) by pc3.berlin.powerweb.de (8.9.3p3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11762 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:49:35 +0100 X-Delivered-To: Original-Received: (qmail-ldap/ctrl 9630 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2007 12:49:39 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO lola.quinscape.zz) ([10.0.3.43]) (envelope-sender ) by ns.quinscape.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 19 Nov 2007 12:49:38 -0000 Original-Received: by lola.quinscape.zz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 91AD58F231; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:49:37 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Mon\, 19 Nov 2007 13\:32\:24 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir MailGate (version: 2.1.3-2; AVE: 7.6.0.34; VDF: 7.0.0.231; host: quinx) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 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:83646 Archived-At: "Juanma Barranquero" writes: > On Nov 19, 2007 1:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> On the other hand, >> as long as it degrades code quality > > "Code quality" is an ambiguous metric, unless you define it. I suppose > you're using some variant of the "code quality = efficiency" > equivalence. Obviously I wasn't. That does not mean that I didn't > think of efficiency (I did, or I wouldn't have done measurements of > ring-member's speed). Though I agree that currently (car (cdr x)) is > faster than (cadr x), I still don't see how that will affect much to > clients of ring.el unless they're doing a quite performance-oriented > use of it. OTOH, code is a bit more readable now IMHO. > >> I'd prefer people to refrain from >> doing large-scale "cleanups" or "simplifications" of that kind. > > That's about a dozen trivial changes in a package with 165 non-empty, > non-comment lines. Perhaps we should previously agree also in the > definition of "large scale". I am afraid that you are really too eager to interpret my mails as a personal critique of you and this particular change. Again: I don't think this particular case nearly important or relevant enough to warrant reverting those changes. But it is not the first such change I see, and I would prefer to see changes in the byte compiler that would make such changes a no-brainer, where one does not have to weigh code efficiency vs. readability. -- David Kastrup