From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Code for cond* Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 14:20:51 +0000 Message-ID: <874jf2hkxo.fsf@localhost> References: <874jf3rkzx.fsf@yahoo.com> <87le8ehqew.fsf@localhost> <87zfwurjv4.fsf@yahoo.com> <87cytqhn35.fsf@localhost> <87r0i6rfjg.fsf@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39976"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Stefan Kangas , rms@gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, acorallo@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, eliz@gnu.org To: Po Lu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 24 15:18:14 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1rSe50-000ACA-Hz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:18:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rSe4S-0005jz-3u; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 09:17:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rSe4F-0005eb-Dg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 09:17:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rSe4C-0001iw-SR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 09:17:27 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFA9624002A for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:17:22 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1706105842; bh=CRhc5cAqgCLVXvV+zGugvXXY3KUA5aEShgSlD4GOY9Q=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: From; b=nQWY6ZijX4uZ8xmiydjDpPoUyVl8D7gD7KSkQt+Ar6uoTRI7teecDbskbw20/kNNk tSolOj59K9VdMgvAyyF2mEatukIFFch0F876Idq/mHr7/FJQskvM8owIEG90AjFUYA zCd8fNkkEm2/QpltekzNKCHro2xn396u3CbX3dqhsKdAhJS4tjh9/vTPHvxzFeyc9Y TQJwLtuJKte3eIJqgYZdtJrcLSjxSWYuqM+y+e4Pu/hrFJuIIO/cdJhiQ9kJ2Of2HU 6uEHFDvHU5zF+UjfejM5O2EpuYs7VifwFYnT6FfPuKFcBxW6xmcu9QZjSTmISK4Esm WFZv6tYej2W/Q== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4TKmHj30rSz6tvd; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:17:21 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87r0i6rfjg.fsf@yahoo.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de 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, 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_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:315306 Archived-At: Po Lu writes: > Ihor Radchenko writes: > >> The problem is that cond* is doing much more than just introducing >> fall-through bindings. > > People appear to appreciate them, and as they say, "two is better than > one..." > > Anyway, ... FYI, I cannot understand the argument you are making. I was replying to the following argument >>> This alone is too important a feature to be consigned to ELPA. My point is that "too important feature" does not have to be linked to the proposed cond* construct. If we really think that fall-through bindings are very important, installing cond* is not the only possible way to introduce fall-through bindings into Elisp. So, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, we may consider fall-through bindings separately, and maybe add them to more conventional Elisp constructs like ordinary `cond'. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at