Re: Any exceptions for the 15-line rule?

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> The latter is licensed under GPLv3+, but I'm pretty sure the author
>> (brianjcj AT gmail, not sure what's his full name) has not signed the
>> CA. And I'm not wild about the idea of waiting several months to add the
>> feature (that is, if the author even agrees to sign the CA).
>
> The change includes
>
>    -    (with-temp-buffer
>    +        (buf (get-buffer-create "*clang-output*"))
>    +    (with-current-buffer buf (erase-buffer))
>    +    (with-current-buffer buf
>
> Which seems like it's making the code worse rather than better.
> If you undo this undesirable part of the patch, it'll be closer to
> the acceptable limit.

Yes, I more or less reverted this piece in my mind already. :)

> For company-clang--lang-option, I'd be tempted to use
>
>    (defun company-clang--lang-option ()
>      (if (eq major-mode 'objc-mode)
>          (if (string= "m" (file-name-extension buffer-file-name))
>              "objective-c" "objective-c++")
>        (substring (symbol-name major-mode) 0 -5)))

Thanks, `substring' is better than `replace-match' I mentioned. But
still, should this be considered a full new implementation? Does
replacing `cond' with `if' in the inner condition make it a new piece of
code, as opposed to derivative one?

> With such cleanups, the patch seems acceptable as a "tiny change".
> But please do ask for the CA as well (so the use of "tiny change" is
> mostly a way to avoid having to wait for the CA to go through).

To be clear, who do I ask to sign the CA over the modified patch? The
auto-complete-clang author, or the person who looked at a few pieces
from that package and adapted them to (admittedly, fairly similar)
company-clang code?