On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:03:06 +0000, David Edmondson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey, look - I deliberately pressed 'r' instead of 'R'! >
You have remarkably malleable muscle memory. Care to donate some to the less fortunate ? :) > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:57:53 +0000, David Edmondson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:15:55 +0100, Pieter Praet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:13:35 +0000, David Edmondson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:03:09 +0100, Pieter Praet <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > [...] What's wrong with '(loop ... collect ...)'? > > > > > > > > > > Nothing at all. I was fixing my own patch [1] without resorting to > > > > > requiring the `cl' package at runtime :) Would be nice if we could > > > > > get rid of the compile-time dependency as well, though. > > > > > > > > Can you explain why it's necessary at runtime? > > > > > > Because otherwise `remove-if-not' and `member-if-not' would > > > be void, as you alluded to previously [1,2]. > > > > Ah, not macros. Sorry for being slow. > > But, loop is a macro, so the loop collector variant (which I originally > suggested) would be fine with just loading cl during compilation. Absolutely. My original intent of conserving a key(chord) [1] (which in retrospect was a fairly pointless exercise in and of itself [2,3]) seems to have inconspicuously morphed into an equally questionable crusade [4] against the `cl' package. As long there's other functions in Notmuch depending on compile-time `cl', there's really no incentive whatsoever to replace your perfectly fine solution. So as said [5], feel free to disregard it, just bikesheddin'... All of my patches in this thread belong in notmuch::obsolete. Peace -- Pieter [1] id:"[email protected]" [2] id:"[email protected]" [3] id:"[email protected]" [4] id:"[email protected]" [5] id:"[email protected]" _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list [email protected] http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
