From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Brockman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: constant `e' Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:29:08 +0100 Message-ID: <8764a9euiz.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> References: <87ireah6ia.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <854ppu8k1l.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87y7n6fdod.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <20070210135753.GB885@muc.de> <87ireaf5f1.fsf@wigwam.brockman.se> <20070210191945.GA1266@muc.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1171132160 22838 80.91.229.12 (10 Feb 2007 18:29:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:29:20 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 10 19:29:14 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 1HFwyI-0003kD-3P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:29:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFwyH-0001eU-Kn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:29:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HFwy6-0001df-D4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:29:02 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HFwy5-0001d6-8K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:29:02 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFwy5-0001d3-5a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:29:01 -0500 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1HFwy4-0006mk-Kr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:29:00 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HFwxp-0004ph-HW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:28:45 +0100 Original-Received: from c-a4fee255.09-32-6c6b7013.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se ([85.226.254.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:28:45 +0100 Original-Received: from daniel by c-a4fee255.09-32-6c6b7013.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:28:45 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 30 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-a4fee255.09-32-6c6b7013.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se X-Face: :&2UWGm>e24)ip~'K@iOsA&JT3JX*v@1-#L)=dUb825\Fwg#`^N!Y*g-TqdS AevzjFJe96f@V'ya8${57/T'"mTd`1o{TGYhHnVucLq!D$r2O{IN)7>.0op_Y`%r;/Q +(]`3F-t10N7NF\.Mm0q}p1:%iqTi:5]1E]rDF)R$9.!,Eu'9K':y9^U3F8UCS1M+A$ 8[[[WT^`$P[vu>P+8]aQMh9giu&fPCqLW2FSsGs User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.51 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:UeHquerew1rGlfkE4OlxjfE6LeM= X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:66227 Archived-At: Alan, >> The concept of `non-nil' is very basic to me, so I do not have to >> filter anything out of `(not (null ...))', because it is already >> phrased the way I think about it. > > The concept of `non-nil' is so basic to me that I don't > see any need to express it explicitly. ;-) That might actually be it. :-) > What gets my goat up is when natural idiomatic C, > something like this: > > while (i--) > > > has to be recoded [...] Yes, I agree. That is completely stupid --- I think the idiomatic style both looks better and is clearer. > However, I rarely change anything "long-winded" in anybody else's code. > It creates bad feeling for no objective benefit. So maybe it's a good thing we don't have `otherwise'. Having just one standard way avoids that bad feeling. -- Daniel Brockman