From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585FB431FD0 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:24:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8TWPZMtupvUd for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:24:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu (outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu [131.215.239.19]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E58431FB6 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:24:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from fire-doxen.imss.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fire-doxen-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823272E50C1E; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:24:19 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Scanned: at Caltech-IMSS on fire-doxen by amavisd-new Received: from finestructure.net (99-7-169-236.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [99.7.169.236]) (Authenticated sender: jrollins) by fire-doxen-submit (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8EF02E50AAC; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:24:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by finestructure.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6093F16C7; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:24:14 -0800 (PST) From: Jameson Graef Rollins To: David Edmondson , Dmitry Kurochkin , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v4] emacs: Re-implement advance/rewind functions of notmuch-show-mode. In-Reply-To: References: <1324665712-2419-1-git-send-email-dme@dme.org> <87ipl7kt82.fsf@gmail.com> <87fwg71tdo.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+127~g6689686 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:24:11 -0800 Message-ID: <87zkefhsz8.fsf@servo.finestructure.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:24:20 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:00:21 +0000, David Edmondson wrote: > Understood. For me this fell inside the 'trivial other change' boundary. Fwiw, I don't remember there ever being such a distinction. I think we've always insisted that unrelated changes should be excluded. As a general rule, I think all patches should be as atomic as they can possibly be. I would much rather have more smaller, atomic patches than fewer longer, composite ones. > > And can you please explain why `when' is better than `if' here? Then I > > will know which one to use the next time :) >=20 > `if' allows only a single statement for `then', which results in code lik= e: >=20 > (if foo > (progn > (this) > (that) > (theother))) >=20 > so if there is no `else' clause I've been preferring: >=20 > (when foo > (this) > (that) > (theother)) >=20 > but that's obviously personal and not important in this specific case. That's good. I like it. The if construction always annoyed me a bit for this reason. The when construction is definitely cleaner. jamie. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJO+PQLAAoJEO00zqvie6q8ZSoP/1mi5uSPUbJ/X0c+dqpmGjI/ htsMzaIgAdN47+hQFmvdsVIKq4MUwY6eWjbLYFvxcCZSVhAcVPIKjTEup6aJ4DVd jXiCGIAvR4mdZFzx67qt7HCC/mdBRMIvM8MvRszrqfpSc2K+ocv63hJGmA/EBKmN Hg5ckCTOppHifCbFjSEDqNSm4SsjGRLEJYvu4TjOtDoPfJukKNyM0buTKkEAmSxF rXcGVAzJ7N0A42XeRyFb7qyC9I94bJmDzBiYXf5Cx11N0sssdUJ5/UgZiDNQB7Wl MN422tYvdKVHK746sQc7kGDA9MfDqGDTmpgseAtTX+D0J+ud0Pa3+5W9Ft1Imf0B GrHYSbevhFqVIJcJoRr5ePfTeKnbR37SvJvQnSWA9xgXZAoOUXTTVUmybVZ176+v 5UAF8bsOBFji4MVHXjD5ewgGEdW/tikQ13SGPeeLXcHm/8UTGPIEU/+6J1CDYHOh WI/E+5dtSMEUK5b994xlpDlWnGR85Z2SGXGM3XqF5tk9/U9odSUvrQ0riWQN6WHL VAq2Sh8+1fcXvGJ0zuCgQCB5d4xjf85XY24YTVvU2cKtc/70WI91pF2/LZmw6r/Z UwXqR3+a29NKarbKmwGWn9SxE9EtX9Ozq91qgpXAOm1BjNhtxAHK8HgDXbpjHR/d CTY1ZiLRliSSlMTPhszu =GDVO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--