Conclusion of that exchange (sorry for being a little slow to understand everything the 3 of you wrote):

This:
    (prin1 name)
    (princ " is ")
    (princ (if (memq (aref status 0) '(?a ?e ?i ?o ?u)) "an " "a "))
    (princ status)
    (princ " package.\n\n")

Can reasonably be replaced by this:
    (let (sentence (format "The status of package %1$S is `%2$s'.\n\n" name status)))
    (princ sentence))

Is that correct ? (I am using the numbered fields that Philipp Stephani implemented in June.) 

Jean-Christophe

> On Jul 2, 2017, at 22:47, Jean-Christophe Helary <jean.christophe.helary@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 2, 2017, at 22:21, Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com <mailto:tino.calancha@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Instead of using message to replace that code:
>>> 
>>> (let ((name "JC"))
>>> (prin1 "My name ")
>>> (princ " is ")
>>> (princ name)
>>> (princ ".\n\n"))
>>> 
>>> It would be better to use something like:
>>> 
>>> (let ((sentence (format "My name is %s.\n\n)))
>>>    (prin1 sentence))
>>> 
>>> That way I keep the possibility to redirect the output somewhere else while making the sentence actually maintainable...
>> That's sounds pretty OK.
>> I would just modify a bit your example, because currenty doesn't work,
>> you get the error:
>> read-from-minibuffer: End of file during parsing
> 
> Yes, I just realized that I had forgotten a lot of required stuff :) Sorry.
> 
> As for Noam's question, the mixing is, I guess, intended but was not properly reflected in my example:
> 
> (let ((name "JC"))
> (princ "My name ")
> (princ " is ")
> (prin1 name)
> (princ ".\n\n"))
> 
> 
> Jean-Christophe