Re: [Logs-devel] removed "no-" rules

[Jim Prewett]

Hi Vijay,

I've committed your changes to the CVS.

> Here are my changes.  They aren't much and were also quite easy to do
> (you've written it well).

I'm very glad to hear that it was easy to do :)

> Why have you been inconsistent with checking if MATCH, DELETE-RULE etc?
> 
> For instance, in RULE-MATCHES-P in rule.lisp, you say
> 
> (cond ((functionp match) (funcall match message))
> 
> but in CHECK-RULE you say
> 
> (when delete-rule
>   (when (funcall delete-rule message)
> 
> Originally I'd thought the former was the right thing to do but now I
> think the second is better.  This way we can use #'foo and 'foo
> interchangeably.
> 
> Is there any reason for the inconsistency?

I'd bet they were written at very different times :)  I think one should 
probably be chosen and used.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that actually the cond is the better 
form.  I'm not positive, but I could see having a constant or variable 
value there instead of a function.  I think thats what the rule-matches-p 
version was after.

What do you think?

Jim