[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [NonGNU Elpa] New package: ETT
From: |
Philip Kaludercic |
Subject: |
Re: [NonGNU Elpa] New package: ETT |
Date: |
Wed, 03 May 2023 16:41:21 +0000 |
John Task <q01@disroot.org> writes:
>> (defun ett-do-division (num1 num2)
>> - "Divide NUM1 between NUM2."
>> + "Divide NUM1 between NUM2." ;can you explain why this is
>> needed?
>> (if (/= (% num1 num2) 0)
>> (/ (float num1) num2)
>> (/ num1 num2)))
>
> I need the extra precision for various functions. (/ 12 7) gives me
> 1, while (ett-do-division 12 7) gives me 1.7142857142857142.
If that is so, I would explain that in the documentation string, but
what I wonder is why if condition is needed. All you basically do is
avoid converting num1 to a float, and the result remains a integer, in
some cases.
>> (defun ett-prettify-time (time)
>> "Return a prettified string for TIME."
>> (let ((hr 0))
>> - (while (>= time 60)
>> + (while (>= time 60) ;the loop here shouldn't be
>> necessary, you can calculate the same thing using remainder and floor
>> (setq hr (1+ hr)
>> time (- time 60)))
>
> I'll look into that. Is there any reason why I would need to avoid
> that loop? The code just works for now.
While this will calculate the values in constant time,
(list (floor time 60) (% time 60))
a loop will always take more iterations depending on the value of the input:
(let ((hr 0))
(while (>= time 60)
(setq hr (1+ hr)
time (- time 60)))
(list hr time))
>> (save-excursion
>> ;; Sort items
>> ;; We need to do it in two steps because it's somehow complicated
>> - (sort-regexp-fields t "^.*$" "\\(:[0-9]+\\)" (point-min) (point-max))
>> + (sort-regexp-fields t "^.*$" "\\(:[0-9]+\\)" (point-min) (point-max))
>> ;have you considered using rx?
>> (sort-regexp-fields t "^.*$" "\\([0-9]+:\\)" (point-min) (point-max))
>> ;; We now align
>> (align-regexp
>
> I have considered it, but while my regexps are weird, they are
> still readable for now. Maybe I'll reconsider it.
FWIW i even hesitated in bringing this up, because as you say the
regular expressions are currently modest in complexity.
>> +(defvar ett-view-mode-map
>> + (let ((map (make-sparse-keymap)))
>> + (define-key map (kbd "C-c C-c") #'ett-add-track)
>> + (define-key map (kbd "SPC") #'ett-space-dwim)
>> + map))
>
> I think you mean just ett-mode-map. In that case, OK.
Right, that was a typo. All I provide is faulty static analysis ^^
>> (define-derived-mode ett-mode text-mode "ETT"
>> "Major mode for editing ETT based texts."
>> (setq font-lock-defaults '(ett-font-lock-keywords t))
>> - (setq-local outline-regexp "[0-9]+-[0-9]+-[0-9]+")
>> + (setq-local outline-regexp "[0-9]+-[0-9]+-[0-9]+") ;does this need to
>> start with a ^
>> ;; show-paren-mode can be somehow annoying here
>> (show-paren-local-mode -1))
>
> Documentation of the variable says it isn't necessary, and it worked
> as is on my tests, but I'm not an expert.
OK, I didn't know about that, then this is fine.
- [NonGNU Elpa] New package: ETT, John Task, 2023/05/02
- Re: [NonGNU Elpa] New package: ETT, John Task, 2023/05/03
- Re: [NonGNU Elpa] New package: ETT,
Philip Kaludercic <=
- Re: [NonGNU Elpa] New package: ETT, John Task, 2023/05/03
- Re: [NonGNU Elpa] New package: ETT, John Task, 2023/05/03
- Re: [NonGNU Elpa] New package: ETT, John Task, 2023/05/03
- Re: [NonGNU Elpa] New package: ETT, John Task, 2023/05/03