From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dave Goel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Fixing numerous `message' bugs.. Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:44:44 -0500 Message-ID: <87mysirwyr.fsf@marie.gnufans.net> References: <87myso8yrs.fsf@marie.gnufans.net> <87ve7b4xt6.fsf@marie.gnufans.net> <85abonpxnw.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85fxyel8o8.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87hciugzal.fsf@marie.gnufans.net> <87ir36o3as.fsf@marie.gnufans.net> <475D7F91.80503@gnu.org> <877ijmmkuq.fsf@marie.gnufans.net> <87aboijnqn.fsf@marie.gnufans.net> <85aboint7d.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1197326727 420 80.91.229.12 (10 Dec 2007 22:45:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:45:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andreas Schwab , Jason Rumney , Dave Goel , Richard Stallman , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 10 23:45:37 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 1J1rNX-0006EU-P8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:45:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1rNG-0003E0-6b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:45:18 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J1rNB-00039i-HK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:45:13 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1J1rN9-00036j-Uo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:45:13 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1rN9-00036T-Kr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:45:11 -0500 Original-Received: from mtao04.charter.net ([209.225.8.178]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J1rMx-0002lF-GT; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:44:59 -0500 Original-Received: from aarprv04.charter.net ([10.20.200.74]) by mtao04.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.00 201-2186-121-20061213) with ESMTP id <20071210224451.MJHL2230.mtao04.charter.net@aarprv04.charter.net>; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:44:51 -0500 Original-Received: from marie.gnufans.net ([66.168.196.121]) by aarprv04.charter.net with ESMTP id <20071210224450.LFYF17353.aarprv04.charter.net@marie.gnufans.net>; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:44:50 -0500 Original-Received: from deego by marie.gnufans.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1J1rMi-00057E-00; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:44:44 -0500 X-Face: #5@=vrmx5t3mZaPY8(mR.n+V#:%4NW7j5A&^}@lGp2rK; CQ4%iH1v'gh/^A)w5*6c&R2(P' 4+seYDq8OK'LPI/C(C^A*w|f*t+8, 'T8b#_0~h3!A7GoVroE[cr0Fb'A0%SdU|Lk@gBV&1vA In-Reply-To: <85aboint7d.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:19:34 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Chzlrs: 0 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (1203?) 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:84990 Archived-At: > (message "%s" (or x "")) > > will work instead of the proposed (message t x) (a) This looks like a neat "trick", but is confusing code. Code should be readable and as manifest as possible, and not rely on such "hidden" tricks. On the obfuscation scale, this is far worse than something as innocuous as (or foo (error bar)), and note that some authors even oppose that.. (b) This code also relies on an undocumented feature of `message' - that "" as the first argument makes it behave almost the same as if the argument were nil. (c) Also note that (message "") is not exactly the same as (message nil), because they return different values. > and considering that it rarely occurs (I think I should have got > most cases), Most, but not all. > I don't think it is really worth the trouble. Hm, but where is the trouble? This is a backward-compatible change. After all, it doesn't change a thing for those that are well-versed in the proper use of `message' and always remember to use the first argument as a format string. I, for one, still think instinctively think of (message) and (error) as if they called their strings literally. It is obvious that many others do too. Perhaps, (message t ..) would slowly become a habit for such authors looking for literal strings, just as (format nil .. ) is a habit for common-lispers... In fact, I would prefer such a functionality for `error' as well..