Re: "simplifications"

["Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com>]

On Nov 19, 2007 1:21 PM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> On the other hand,
> as long as it degrades code quality

"Code quality" is an ambiguous metric, unless you define it. I suppose
you're using some variant of the "code quality = efficiency"
equivalence. Obviously I wasn't. That does not mean that I didn't
think of efficiency (I did, or I wouldn't have done measurements of
ring-member's speed). Though I agree that currently (car (cdr x)) is
faster than (cadr x), I still don't see how that will affect much to
clients of ring.el unless they're doing a quite performance-oriented
use of it. OTOH, code is a bit more readable now IMHO.

> I'd prefer people to refrain from
> doing large-scale "cleanups" or "simplifications" of that kind.

That's about a dozen trivial changes in a package with 165 non-empty,
non-comment lines. Perhaps we should previously agree also in the
definition of "large scale".

> Before we are starting a trend here, it would be nice if the
> optimizations making such changes not have an impact on efficiency
> would be in place.

With this, I agree. You see, I was sure we would find some common
ground after all...

             Juanma