From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id yLIANCLVJV/ENQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 01 Aug 2020 20:48:34 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id sEfsLyLVJV/RLQAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 01 Aug 2020 20:48:34 +0000 Received: from mail.notmuchmail.org (nmbug.tethera.net [144.217.243.247]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB1F69404E1 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 20:48:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [144.217.243.247] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.notmuchmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F46428835; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 16:48:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.hostpark.net (mail.hostpark.net [212.243.197.30]) by mail.notmuchmail.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 358BA2832D for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 16:48:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hostpark.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C78160BF; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 22:48:23 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by Hostpark/NetZone Mailprotection at hostpark.net Received: from mail.hostpark.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail1.hostpark.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10124) with ESMTP id Hp2lUoL01Ido; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 22:48:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.hostpark.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 179C8160AE; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 22:48:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Jonas Bernoulli To: Tomi Ollila , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] A great number of cosmetic changes In-Reply-To: References: <20200726165818.400-1-jonas@bernoul.li> Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 22:48:22 +0200 Message-ID: <87lfiyt7mx.fsf@bernoul.li> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID-Hash: 2IQHQIXFK7U5FCSKMTRSGO3ZZ2AN7QWR X-Message-ID-Hash: 2IQHQIXFK7U5FCSKMTRSGO3ZZ2AN7QWR X-MailFrom: jonas@bernoul.li X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-notmuch.notmuchmail.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.2.1 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org designates 144.217.243.247 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=notmuch-bounces@notmuchmail.org X-Spam-Score: 0.53 X-TUID: QSrsawMzninH Tomi Ollila writes: > Series looks good to me (as far as I can tell). That one comment > indentation in id:20200726165818.400-4-jonas@bernoul.li is what popped up > in my review (I did review only diff patch, and don't know how that > actually look -- like in those spaces after do in my previous reply, those > look good to me now) Thanks for the review. Should I send a v2 now or wait a bit to see if someone else spots any issues? > One thing that come into my minw while browsing through patches -- does > changing if's to when's accumulate any bloat -- or does byte compiler > optimize that "extra" 'progn out in (list 'if cond (cons 'progn body))). I don't think the byte-compiler optimizes this away. Some macros use `macroexp-progn' instead of `progn' to take care of this. I am guessing that `when' doesn't use it because "subr.el" has to be loaded before "macroexp.el". I think that's okay. Jonas