Re: [Emacs-diffs] master b88e7c8: Make transpose-regions interactive (Bug#30343)

[Richard Copley <rcopley@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1421 bytes --]

On 11 March 2018 at 18:13, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>
> > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 12:05:11 -0400
> > Cc: "Charles A. Roelli" <charles@aurox.ch>
> >
> > > -DEFUN ("transpose-regions", Ftranspose_regions, Stranspose_regions,
> 4, 5, 0,
> > > +DEFUN ("transpose-regions", Ftranspose_regions, Stranspose_regions,
> 4, 5,
> > > +       "(if (< (length mark-ring) 2)\
> > > +       (error \"Other region must be marked before transposing two
> regions\")\
> > > +     (let* ((num (if current-prefix-arg\
> > > +                    (prefix-numeric-value current-prefix-arg)\
> > > +                   0))\
> > > +            (ring-length (length mark-ring))\
> > > +            (eltnum (mod num ring-length))\
> > > +            (eltnum2 (mod (1+ num) ring-length)))\
> > > +       (list (point) (mark) (elt mark-ring eltnum) (elt mark-ring
> eltnum2))))",
> >
> > Am I the only one who dislikes seeing such Elisp code hidden within our
> > C files?
>
> I have no problems with that.
>
>
I agree with Eli, it seems fine to me, but I'm not sure what the
alternative is. If it's to move the body of the interactive spec into
a function in an elisp file, and replace the spec with a call to that
function, it seems overly complicated. (It also feel like a layering
violation, but that can only be true if there is a rule or guideline
saying so and I don't know of any.)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2216 bytes --]