Accessor functions vs nth (WAS: Decoded time accessors)

[Noam Postavsky <npostavs@gmail.com>]

On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 at 17:43, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:

> I disagree.  All these "readability hacks" greatly increase the number
> of functions a hacker must cope with, and greatly increase their
> complexity (they require cl-... macros, many of which are poorly
> documented).
>
> We've coped now with (nth 8 state) (for the starting position of a
> string or comment) for decades now without any problems.  The sort of
> "readability hack" proposed, as it is steadily proliferated, makes the
> entry barrier for new Elisp programmers steadily higher.  To use it is
> one extra thing which has to be learned, or looked up.

> 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