From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 64109fcae7 2/3: indent-for-tab-command: Deal with large point or modiff values. Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:55:23 -0500 Message-ID: References: <164219059635.16941.2631797019964844711@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <20220114200316.CB79BC0DA30@vcs2.savannah.gnu.org> <87h7a2qy73.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="22768"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Robert Pluim , Philipp Stephani , Emacs developers To: Philipp Stephani Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 17 20:58:50 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n9Y9R-0005lO-M5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 20:58:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55312 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n9Y9Q-0003RL-PK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:58:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49352) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n9Y6T-0000G1-4u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:55:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:2545) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n9Y6O-0008Tn-L0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:55:44 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3A6A380055; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:55:26 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BF61080401; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:55:24 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1642449324; bh=S/mgllZHJFQuyawO27GlK2vUpDN8dnSc4D31/ZsDQ8c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=mxxGPVGu/m9BE3zYq/HWs7SerJUdZHUdxOfjY7XlqQt4Q9w8ipela8IvAuEffONz6 GYfPI3lDRDJFXlcKqZoi6ZLr1fBDPrGW8GI+171wjg/BFqZlTvV5bxGwoZJ43YCCJx gPWoHYCZ/qHTrTOVCWOranC4OOBlffYmdyg9W9Eywk2p63iA17XYuRjxGCgOIMoAuk pa2Uk27tndDAkWSXfk4bbuKfZz66ATYlK88iQEYq4V7ZXnVTSCt5eJlVkoD4nfupdf KNFakMp2rbMoYbzckci28zzVWlXUx6C+d4pMoaFM7vt/Eq5rKdepGE9kqBS1eECMsx zvnoGBGWONgYQ== Original-Received: from alfajor (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B388D120859; Mon, 17 Jan 2022 14:55:24 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Philipp Stephani's message of "Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:23:07 +0100") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:284901 Archived-At: >> You could use '=3D' here, no, just to emphasise the point that these are= integers? > Yeah, they have identical semantics for integers. I tend to prefer eql > since its overall semantics are simpler Agreed. `=3D` can signal an error and obeys the NaN corner cases as dictated by IEEE so I usually prefer `eql`. > (but the manual disagrees and says that =3D should be preferred). Can't agree on everything. > I=CA=BCm a simple man: I can retain the difference between `eq' and > 'equal', but throwing `eql' into the mix is just too much :-) It's easy: just always use `eql` instead of `eq`. They only differ in two cases: - `eql` gives you the answer you expected and `eq` gives an answer that baffles you. - your code is *really* naughty. `eq` can be marginally faster, but the difference is so small that it's only noticeable when it's called from C in a tight loop, like maybe when comparing `memq` and `memql` but not when calling `eq` vs `eql` from ELisp where the actual overhead of interpreting the byte code is large enough to dwarf the difference of the execution of the op itself. Stefan