Re: Accessor functions vs nth (WAS: Decoded time accessors)

["João Távora" <joaotavora@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1073 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:12 AM Noam Postavsky <npostavs@gmail.com> wrote:

> > This sort of complication needs to be kept in check.  But thanks, Lars,
> > for actually having the consideration to ask here first.
>
> Huh. I'm constantly annoyed at the (nth 8 state) thing, because I can
> never remember which number is which. In fact, I had meant to propose
> some accessors in Bug#32504. It didn't actually occur to me that this
> might be at all controversial, the only reason that bug sat for a
> while is that I got busy with other things.
>
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/32504#51
>
> I don't see any reason for it to be controversial, either.  If some people
like the terseness (and what I believe is the unneeded obfuscation) of (nth
8 x)
they can still use it. I'd rather have (in-string-or-comment-p s).  The
syntax-ppss
situation is particularly painful because the doc is actually in
parse-partial-sexp. So you're using syntax-ppss but have to remember to
find the doc in that other function (unless you like clicking a link each
time)

João

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1528 bytes --]