From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Oleh Krehel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] What's the quickest way to contribute? Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:46:08 +0100 Message-ID: References: <54B4899B.8010004@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1421159301 15235 80.91.229.3 (13 Jan 2015 14:28:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:28:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 13 15:28:16 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YB2S8-0002Mo-IG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:28:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39620 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YB2S7-0001hM-Vz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:28:16 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41808) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YB1nO-0007yP-RL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:46:11 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YB1nN-0004ph-Sb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:46:10 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-qc0-x234.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234]:43433) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YB1nN-0004pd-OZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:46:09 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id i8so2165775qcq.11 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 05:46:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ihCC3d0oZFUX9hvqsTDzTpx0KsU97yoq/SjRrVnYxUo=; b=1IWz8ejKvPcz8Xj5Y9esC5eCCU2Jhc4r4LUwtTEPt8O9dnS2+OtHWDXDL1Ypfc/OUr Jew3geBYRmc5ZnRuZd/ebWxpJ/pU7MoxxSpRhrx14z/OEsD+In/jWPZWq1hQUC4PT3Ms vrvG9IFIq31PhT9O4KTX8tq/DN0cC2XVJO7iO3ueUd6VfOy4bz1Mu2SayRBvag1omJ8B 86R0ANvms5WxLVe+9EcVVcIo8EE3rzIGYlHKqXBVDFDQdJPRLFXx585dJ6bZUuJ4JRnu 0p3dVgQqZV1gvDKDKTc9jgudAF6GDxf0HF9YLl+3QuZh8Hp/fwYBsU9BLIPCeuid6U4a z7+w== X-Received: by 10.229.27.73 with SMTP id h9mr59324278qcc.3.1421156769007; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 05:46:09 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.140.18.132 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 05:46:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: VB2djfpAbkk9R7sEM-6Zjixe_cA X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:27:56 -0500 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:181218 Archived-At: > I think algorithmically, it's equivalent (both are O(N), basically). Yes, I've used my blurry version of *algorithmically faster*, which means iterating on one list instead of two in succession; the complexity is the same, of course. > Yes, cl-* functions are definitely allowed. There is of course a lot of > carried prejudice from when cl-* functions didn't exist (and we just > had the `remove-if-not' instead, whose use was not accepted in Emacs's > own code), but there is also still a restriction in this respect: cl-* > functions still can't be used from preloaded files (because that would > require preloading cl-lib). By preloaded files, do you mean the ones on `preloaded-file-list'? There are 112 files in this list on my system, so it's quite a large restriction. Is it no-more, no-less, i.e. only these 112 files? Maybe the byte compiler could do some linting to enforce this restriction? It already contains a lot of checks. Oleh