[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] [PATCH] org-agenda: Add 'none setting for org-agenda-overriding-
Re: [O] [PATCH] org-agenda: Add 'none setting for org-agenda-overriding-header
Sat, 02 Sep 2017 09:49:03 +0200
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
Adam Porter <address@hidden> writes:
> You're right, that's why IIRC I used cl-defmacro originally. The
> issue here seems to be using the keyword argument. It seemed like a
> good idea to specify it with the ":default: keyword argument for two
> 1. To make it explicitly clear that the body of code passed to the
> macro is only the default header, not necessarily the one that will be
> 2. To make it easier to add other arguments in the future.
This is an internal macro. We can add anything without problem in the
future. For now, I really think `defmacro' is enough.
>>> + ;; Format week number span
>>> + (cond ((< (- d2 d1) 350)
>>> + (if (= w1 w2)
>>> + (format " (W%02d)" w1)
>>> + (format " (W%02d-W%02d)" w1 w2)))
>>> + (t ""))
>> (cond ((<= 350 (- d2 d1)) "")
>> ((= w1 w2) (format " (W%02d)" w1))
>> (t (format " (W%02d-W%02d)" w1 w2)))
> I see. That doesn't seem to be exactly the same logic as the nested if,
Why do you think it isn't equivalent?
>>> - (let ((n 0) s)
>>> - (mapc (lambda (x)
>>> - (setq s (format "(%d)%s" (setq n (1+ n)) x))
>>> - (if (> (+ (current-column) (string-width s) 1)
>>> - (insert "\n "))
>>> - (insert " " s))
>>> - kwds))
>>> + (cl-loop for keyword in kwds
>>> + and num from 1
>>> + for string = (format "(%d)%s" num keyword)
>>> + when (> (+ (current-column) (string-width string)
>>> + (window-width))
>>> + do (insert "\n ")
>>> + do (insert " " string))
>> Ouch. Why `cl-loop' over `dolist'? Also it looks wrong since the last
>> `do' is not always executed? (or is it?).
> Yes, it is always executed: the "when" only applies to the next clause,
> and I tested it to be sure, both by executing it and expanding the
> macro. I've used cl-loop a lot lately, so it is familiar to me.
This looks too much magical to me. Both `do' are treated differently.
>> I know there is more than one way to skin a cat, but I'd rather use
>> a straightforward one:
>> (let ((n 0))
>> (dolist (k kwds)
>> (let ((s (format "(%d)%s" (cl-incf n) k)))
>> (when (> (+ (current-column) (string-width s) 1) (frame-width))
>> (insert "\n "))
>> (insert " " s))))
> I guess this is a matter of style, as I prefer the cl-loop version,
> which doesn't hide the incrementing in the format call
You must be kidding. `cl-loop' hides a lot of things. In any case, you
can increment the counter above the `s' binding if you want to.
> and avoids another level of nesting just for the counter variable. :)
> But if you want me to use the dolist instead, it's up to you.
I'd rather have `dolist' yes. That's more basic and therefore, easier to