From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CL package serious deficiencies Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:55:06 -0500 Message-ID: References: <33271707.post@talk.nabble.com> <87fwemcwlx.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> <87d39pgdu4.fsf@gnus.org> <87mx8qy09w.fsf@mithlond.arda> <87bop4ujys.fsf@mithlond.arda> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1329065720 18848 80.91.229.3 (12 Feb 2012 16:55:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:55:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Helmut Eller , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Teemu Likonen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 12 17:55:19 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rwchr-0005fo-Ax for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:55:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58355 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rwchq-0007ow-Vq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:55:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:40501) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rwchn-0007og-TG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:55:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rwchm-0006Zo-Te for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:55:15 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:40184) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rwchm-0006Zk-OO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:55:14 -0500 Original-Received: from dsl-67-204-2-91.acanac.net ([67.204.2.91]:61496 helo=ceviche.home) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rwchl-00057U-QD; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:55:14 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B38436620B; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:55:06 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87bop4ujys.fsf@mithlond.arda> (Teemu Likonen's message of "Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:53:15 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.10 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:148510 Archived-At: > Those keyword arguments are not useless. Some of them are rarely needed > and that's why it's good that they are &key and not &optional. > I think > (replace-match "foo" :subexp 2) > is much more readable than > (replace-match "foo" nil nil nil 2) I'm not opposed to keyword args at all (I introduced them in several macros, as a matter of fact). I'm opposed to args that are almost never used and where the same result can be obtained fairly easily some other way. Stefan