|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | Re: master 78fc49407b8 1/3: Improve filling of ChangeLog entries |
Date: | Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:05:57 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird |
On 31/01/2024 17:32, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hello, Dmitry. On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 17:15:41 +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote:On 31/01/2024 16:01, Po Lu wrote:See any file in CC Mode,No shortage of maintainers, you say?None.
One cannot name a package with bus factor of 1 and say it has plenty of people willing to maintain it. I don't mean to criticize your work (not knowing the exact tradeoffs), but it's plainly a bad example.
or GCC's reload.cc, which features this massive conditional dwarfing any of ours:Was there a way to write it more succinctly, using some higher-level constructs? That is the subject.I think the discussion is over the advantages and disadvantages of replacing obscure concise code with its equivalent in plain Lisp.
Again: Po showed some tapestry of dense code which was supposedly okay. What was it supposed to demonstrate? What alternative to compare with?
After several days of struggling with named-let, cl-labels, and friends, I vote for the plain Lisp, even if it does need more lines to express. It is simply less work.
I've never used named-let, and very rarely cl-labels.The latter is a very simple idea, though: create a bunch of local function definitions. Like nested functions in Python, for example.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |