[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] Why not push?
From: |
Marcin Borkowski |
Subject: |
Re: [O] Why not push? |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Feb 2015 23:33:03 +0100 |
On 2015-02-15, at 12:35, Rasmus <address@hidden> wrote:
> Marcin Borkowski <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I don't want to be nitpicking, but I'm just curious. I'm looking at the
>> function `org-split-string'. It uses (two times) the following
>> construction:
>>
>> (setq list (cons (something) list))
>>
>> Is there any particular reason for not using `push' there?
>
> These days you even have split-string in subr which you can make behave
> like org-split-string.
Interesting. I'll look into it.
> Oh, and there's all the cl re-implementations... I like org-some better
> than cl-some just cause it sounds nice when you say it (try):
Yes, it seems to me that reinventing the wheel is quite common in Emacs
libraries.
> org (tiny pause) some.
At least one lame pun comes to mind...
> —Rasmus
Best,
--
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University
Re: [O] Why not push?, Rasmus, 2015/02/15
- Re: [O] Why not push?,
Marcin Borkowski <=
Re: [O] Why not push?, Sebastien Vauban, 2015/02/16