[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [patch] minor patch for register.el
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: [patch] minor patch for register.el |
Date: |
Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:15:25 -0800 |
> > Adds functions `register-insertable-p',
> > `register-jumpable-p', and `register-printable-p'.
>
> Why are these needed? The text description of the change sounds good,
> but the corresponding code ends up duplicating a lot of
> `cond' code with no obvious direct benefit.
General predicates usable elsewhere also.
Unified error msg if register does not satisfy the predicate.
> Using cl-assert indeed sounds wrong. It should probably be
> a user-error instead.
And the same error msg is appropriate even for cases where `registerv-p' is not
true.
> But what is the benefit of moving the test?
Moving what test? Doing a `get-register' test outside the cond? Testing
jumpability outside the cond? In both cases: to raise the right error msg.
E.g., do this with the current code: `C-x r j w'. The error msg you get is not
appropriate: "Register doesn't contain a buffer position or configuration".
Dunno whether that msg is really appropriate for `file' or `file-query'. But
even if it is, the real error in this case is that `w' is not a register.
Do you want a patch with a change that indents the cond clauses as before and
uses `user-error' instead of `error'? Or do you prefer to make whatever changes
you want yourself?