Re: Quality of life improvements to macroexp.el

[Jeremy Bryant <jb@jeremybryant.net>]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

> Jeremy Bryant <jb@jeremybryant.net> writes:
>
>> Thuna <thuna.cing@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I was just looking into using macroexp.el and found some features that I
>>> felt were lacking.  These were: 1. accepting multiple forms in
>>> `macroexp-if' and `macroexp-let*', 2. flattening of `progn's in
>>> `macroexp-progn' and `macroexp-unprogn', 3. getting rid of branches in
>>> `macroexp-if' in case the TEST is constant (and consequently a way to
>>> tell whether a constant form is nil or non-nil).  I've went through the
>>> rest of macroexp.el and haven't found anything else that stood out,
>>> though I might change my mind as I keep using it.
>>>
>>> I've attached a patch for possible implementations of these, though this
>>
>> Thanks.  For the fastest response and ease of tracking in the bug tracker:
>>
>> Every patch must have several pieces of information before we can properly evaluate it. They are described below. 
>>       <https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Sending-Patches.html>
>> When you have all these pieces, use the M-x submit-emacs-patch command to send the patch.
>
> This is in nowise a cast-iron requirement for submitted patches,
> especially for small patches such as this is.

OK, thanks Po for clarifying.

I was emphasizing the benefits of the bug tracker's features,
together with wider patch conventions, but I accept they could be overkill in
this situation.