On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:09:55 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi David. > > On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:46:13 +0000, David Edmondson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:01:33 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * Revert changes to notmuch-show-advance-and-archive. > > > > Why? (I mean, because the change is poor or just that it's unrelated or > > because I didn't mention it) > > > > Because it is unrelated.
Understood. For me this fell inside the 'trivial other change' boundary.
> And can you please explain why `when' is better than `if' here? Then I
> will know which one to use the next time :)
`if' allows only a single statement for `then', which results in code like:
(if foo
(progn
(this)
(that)
(theother)))
so if there is no `else' clause I've been preferring:
(when foo
(this)
(that)
(theother))
but that's obviously personal and not important in this specific case.
> > > * Can we split this in two patches? One for rewind and another for
> > > advance.
> >
> > I'll think about that. Is there a specific reason? I'm not particularly
> > in favour of splitting things just for the sake of it.
> >
>
> Because they are independent and can be split. And it is easier to
> review (and work in general, I suppose) with two smaller patches than
> with a single bigger one.
Your git-fu is obviously much stronger than mine. :-) Rebasing (groups
of) patches takes more of my time and is more error prone than I'd like.
pgpd6Dp9TFmpP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list [email protected] http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
