From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Mastro Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs 25.0.94: Is require failing to define macros and functions at compile time? Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:04:34 -0700 Message-ID: References: <5773E5D6.8040201@gmail.com> <57741C4D.6070103@lanl.gov> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467234339 23643 80.91.229.3 (29 Jun 2016 21:05:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rswgnu@gmail.com, =?UTF-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgUGl0LS1DbGF1ZGVs?= , Drew Adams To: emacs-devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 29 23:05:38 2016 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 1bIMfp-0008Dz-KI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 23:05:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45796 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIMfp-00079x-1V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:05:29 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50971) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIMfH-00079f-Lx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:04:56 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIMfG-00053A-Mp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:04:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-qk0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]:35527) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIMfG-00052z-J5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:04:54 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-qk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id a125so111197404qkc.2 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:04:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xU00GMuunTNLpPEB4YFeP0HdgdNxZGuZNHhRB4tWn/s=; b=uoo/ihr+w+VAWLIwwUMxo71UaYAnLFq7mPedsUuvAqRUq4/nVoKd/4a1jVbqAX2Zbp mLCnckKrXfbUwILG8Emnu+drAc0XywBj8/aLb6b1IfKj+PgVsREIy1awe9GlAUxyedvq 2RZffXT4zuX9RkOzSBXqDcAP8oWrnW5GNLnc5N0nhaCp/nWeSxNqPnggSSbo8eVpOpVS vTVLCpjsjOCtaLdmKEzn1gmwYdMw0oAYNp28bxCbfwxQfX7deuTiVRCw/96stPq+Nfl9 KyaaAVSSYX12Yodjtd8sEgPZEMBurcriIlW7/HQ1HLgtAVFqc6HjM5WzTtcbCHhXdXPz 0Xfw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xU00GMuunTNLpPEB4YFeP0HdgdNxZGuZNHhRB4tWn/s=; b=iSpeZa+DVCb6AkObrQfm95iTMNPNooSx31rYO+IVKdJACCw0qrBaMHpK+63zXWVJpR YIuIxcNomWAzjywyRsR01ViUeLcxxXiF7C15WqNvf7Fdqb7VwM9ivlo9yrFJ9Bc6Q+aV RnmklWQAcqXLV5X/kBBColX3kJncVWVkd+tf+B3qjSmccYViJ6UTX1J1vfT1PDmhBEuD 05fWf6uzPffXS+pqijTgMI5oj2NHFhV2KgKpqOnASbY+hJpEmd3IkvzNzjlQySd9z+rW hfgvxYYPv83lFARzzNajZwgqXj3+fJk+e2p0ywwpWl/v0zbWMWmy4uTr7VK8Oh3Y3Cbf pcbg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tK8hGp9wn+0LHVcEQBE5pAofpBBJFhWkkxC1X81HM0jsBGObjdoXZPDnv3PWtWln0D1D5p9LLazWYEAgw== X-Received: by 10.55.132.193 with SMTP id g184mr12558210qkd.209.1467234294084; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.237.48.77 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:04:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:204952 Archived-At: Robert Weiner wrote: > What happened to less code is easier to maintain? Or don't repeat yourself? The benefit of less code and "DRY" is that they make systems easier to comprehend, maintain, and extend. Those are very important properties but arguably (and IMO) don't apply to this case (or, IMO, to the earlier discussion regarding `called-interactively-p'). Obviously, this is subjective and arguably bikeshedding. I like less code too - I just don't think it will always and in every case lead us to the best overall result. John