Re: [O] Why not push?
Hello, Bastien Guerry b...@gnu.org writes: I pushed a tiny clean up here. Next question is: why not using (split-string STRING SEPARATORS t) ? It's a first step. It would be nice to get rid of `org-split-string' altogether in the long run. We may make `org-split-string' an obsolete alias for `split-string', and update code base accordingly. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
Re: [O] Why not push?
Nicolas Goaziou m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr writes: It's a first step. It would be nice to get rid of `org-split-string' altogether in the long run. We may make `org-split-string' an obsolete alias for `split-string', and update code base accordingly. Agreed. I was unclear, I meant: why not using split-string instead of org-split-string. -- Bastien
Re: [O] Why not push?
Hi Marcin, Marcin Borkowski mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl writes: 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? I pushed a tiny clean up here. Next question is: why not using (split-string STRING SEPARATORS t) ? -- Bastien
Re: [O] Why not push?
Hi Marcin, Marcin Borkowski wrote: 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? IIUC, Emacs developers did not like needing (require 'cl) in the packages' code base. Not sure why (they did not like it, or why they did not integrate such handy functions in the Emacs core). And it seems to have changed. They even have a lot of `cl-*' functions now. Though, for whatever reason, they don't have `cl-push', but well `cl-pushnew'... Not all that clear to me. Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban
Re: [O] Why not push?
On 2015-02-15, at 11:42, Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.net wrote: Nicolas Goaziou m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr writes: Hello, Marcin Borkowski mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl writes: 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? No. Good luck with refactoring org.el. ;) Shhh... if you don't say anything, he might go and do it! ;-) Actually, not. (Though it might make a nice student project. And it would be a good idea to do it.) But I haven't signed the FSF papers. OTOH, I have a personal project where I devote some amount of time every day to read someone else's code. I started with parts of simple.el, and now the time has come for ox-latex (and its dependencies). 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?
Marcin Borkowski mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl 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. 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): org (tiny pause) some. —Rasmus -- When in doubt, do it!
Re: [O] Why not push?
Nicolas Goaziou m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr writes: Hello, Marcin Borkowski mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl writes: 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? No. Good luck with refactoring org.el. ;) Shhh... if you don't say anything, he might go and do it!
Re: [O] Why not push?
Marcin Borkowski mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl writes: On 2015-02-15, at 11:42, Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.net wrote: Nicolas Goaziou m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr writes: Hello, Marcin Borkowski mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl writes: 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? No. Good luck with refactoring org.el. ;) Shhh... if you don't say anything, he might go and do it! ;-) Actually, not. (Though it might make a nice student project. And it would be a good idea to do it.) But I haven't signed the FSF papers. OTOH, I have a personal project where I devote some amount of time every day to read someone else's code. I started with parts of simple.el, and now the time has come for ox-latex (and its dependencies). Ah well, maybe we'll trick someone else into it :) My own personal project is to spend a bit of every day working on the emacs packages that make my computing life possible: Org, Gnus, and BBDB. I'd prefer to spend most of it on Org, but the fact is that when your email setup is broken, that always takes priority. Org and Gnus both suffer (and both benefit) from wild and messy codebases. Org has Nicolas to help whip it into shape; Gnus doesn't. If you're just reading code, ox-latex is a great place to start. If you're fixing code, org-agenda could use some love... Eric
Re: [O] Why not push?
Hello, Marcin Borkowski mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl writes: 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? No. Good luck with refactoring org.el. ;) Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
Re: [O] Why not push?
On 2015-02-15, at 13:26, Eric Abrahamsen e...@ericabrahamsen.net wrote: Ah well, maybe we'll trick someone else into it :) ;-) My own personal project is to spend a bit of every day working on the emacs packages that make my computing life possible: Org, Gnus, and BBDB. I'd prefer to spend most of it on Org, but the fact is that when your email setup is broken, that always takes priority. Org and Gnus both suffer (and both benefit) from wild and messy codebases. Org has Nicolas to help whip it into shape; Gnus doesn't. That is a good one. It wouldn't work for me, though, for reason I've explained earlier. If you're just reading code, ox-latex is a great place to start. If you're fixing code, org-agenda could use some love... Well, since I want to write a modification of the LaTeX exporter, ox-latex seems a natural thing to look at. OTOH, org-agenda looks scary ;-). Eric 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?
On 2015-02-15, at 12:35, Rasmus ras...@gmx.us wrote: Marcin Borkowski mb...@wmi.amu.edu.pl 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?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Nicolas Goaziou m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr wrote: No. Good luck with refactoring org.el. ;) Could you clarify what you think are the biggest issues with refactoring org.el ?
Re: [O] Why not push?
On 2015-02-15, at 22:22, Yuri Niyazov yuri.niya...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Nicolas Goaziou m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr wrote: No. Good luck with refactoring org.el. ;) Could you clarify what you think are the biggest issues with refactoring org.el ? IMHO, the biggest and most useful thing would be to divide the humongous functions into smaller, reusable parts. 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?
Yuri Niyazov yuri.niya...@gmail.com writes: Could you clarify what you think are the biggest issues with refactoring org.el ? Its size. Regards,
