From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "simplifications" Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:32:24 +0100 Message-ID: References: <86ejem1pig.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <861wam1m8m.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <86sl32zaqy.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1195475568 6427 80.91.229.12 (19 Nov 2007 12:32:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:32:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, Miles Bader To: "David Kastrup" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 19 13:32:55 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Iu5o2-0000xW-Lf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:32:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu5no-0001eR-Rl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:32:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu5nk-0001dY-D9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:32:32 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu5ng-0001aY-Ok for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:32:32 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu5ng-0001aB-IO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:32:28 -0500 Original-Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.180]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Iu5ng-0008Oh-6q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:32:28 -0500 Original-Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k34so1965352wah for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:32:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=7CNMJjOw7qDw39BqfkyRWO9dbcyqYeE1IIsnQG6V4eM=; b=VZ/d7fxyZyZPvtAIfvJPwb4wv7C+Vapv1E2ZilReREEictk4IMaF3M9l/LDzhetbckwxAGF+dXZM428l8NB2TujATp/zRsekd68pmb3w+T11V0UhhYczf1d0zh7+ovfljqLlHx0eHlWjhONKmTExFb4oUzNW2qd0oxY5m3IrXC4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=sO3RBZxd7MSLMhsdflsTWVkuQ5QBS6S8OBw3FCylTf4YFCvbcNOGZRBD5Edobmu5jSQR5MJo1EOu5IV51aQN0Jwxum5XP/5Ie3bBEh78a/oufVp+2xoszl8Cg5ZytIuRuNUncAaaRwFj4neJJfusVC3PHp86+uopUwTLCQEFMFI= Original-Received: by 10.114.149.2 with SMTP id w2mr822008wad.1195475544893; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:32:24 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.114.168.11 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:32:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <86sl32zaqy.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:83645 Archived-At: On Nov 19, 2007 1:21 PM, David Kastrup 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