On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:18:48 -0500, Aaron Ecay wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:48:02 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > 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
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:18:48 -0500, Aaron Ecay wrote:
> Runtime dependencies are not allowed in code distributed with emacs
> because of RMS?s conservativism[1].
Yow! Conservatism is such a pejorative term.
But, I generally agree. We should allow cl at runtime and document the
same.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:18:48 -0500, Aaron Ecay aarone...@gmail.com wrote:
Runtime dependencies are not allowed in code distributed with emacs
because of RMS’s conservativism[1].
Yow! Conservatism is such a pejorative term.
But, I generally agree. We should allow cl at runtime and document the
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:18:48 -0500, Aaron Ecay aarone...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:48:02 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
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
Quoth Aaron Ecay on Jan 18 at 5:18 pm:
> Compile-time dependencies on ?cl? are absolutely not a problem.
> Virtually every major elisp program depends on cl at compile time.
> Runtime dependencies are not allowed in code distributed with emacs
> because of RMS?s conservativism[1].
>
> Since
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:48:02 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> 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.
>
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:03:06 +, David Edmondson 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 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jan
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:13:35 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:03:09 +0100, Pieter Praet 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 :)
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:15:55 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:13:35 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:03:09 +0100, Pieter Praet
> > wrote:
> > > > [...] What's wrong with '(loop ... collect ...)'?
> > >
> > > Nothing at all. I was fixing my own patch
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:10:27 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:46:55 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > Make `notmuch-cycle-notmuch-buffers' more Lispy and merge into `notmuch',
> > eliminating the need to hog yet another keybind.
>
> What does "merge" mean here? [...]
"One
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:03:44 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:46:55 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > Make `notmuch-cycle-notmuch-buffers' more Lispy and merge into `notmuch',
> > eliminating the need to hog yet another keybind.
> ...
> > diff --git a/emacs/notmuch.el
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:03:09 +0100, Pieter Praet 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
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:03:44 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:46:55 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Make `notmuch-cycle-notmuch-buffers' more Lispy and merge into `notmuch',
eliminating the need to hog yet another keybind.
...
diff --git
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:10:27 +0200, Jani Nikula j...@nikula.org wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:46:55 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Make `notmuch-cycle-notmuch-buffers' more Lispy and merge into `notmuch',
eliminating the need to hog yet another keybind.
What does merge mean
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:03:09 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org 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
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:13:35 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:03:09 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
[...] What's wrong with '(loop ... collect ...)'?
Nothing at all. I was fixing my own patch [1] without resorting to
requiring the `cl'
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:15:55 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:13:35 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:03:09 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
[...] What's wrong with '(loop ... collect ...)'?
Nothing at all.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:03:06 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org 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 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:48:02 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
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
Quoth Aaron Ecay on Jan 18 at 5:18 pm:
Compile-time dependencies on ‘cl’ are absolutely not a problem.
Virtually every major elisp program depends on cl at compile time.
Runtime dependencies are not allowed in code distributed with emacs
because of RMS’s conservativism[1].
Since notmuch
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:46:55 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> Make `notmuch-cycle-notmuch-buffers' more Lispy and merge into `notmuch',
> eliminating the need to hog yet another keybind.
What does "merge" mean here? Will it still be possible for me to hit one
key to unconditionally get to
Make `notmuch-cycle-notmuch-buffers' more Lispy and merge into `notmuch',
eliminating the need to hog yet another keybind.
---
emacs/notmuch.el | 40 ++--
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/emacs/notmuch.el b/emacs/notmuch.el
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:46:55 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> Make `notmuch-cycle-notmuch-buffers' more Lispy and merge into `notmuch',
> eliminating the need to hog yet another keybind.
...
> diff --git a/emacs/notmuch.el b/emacs/notmuch.el
> index ef4dcc7..539b3a0 100644
> --- a/emacs/notmuch.el
>
Make `notmuch-cycle-notmuch-buffers' more Lispy and merge into `notmuch',
eliminating the need to hog yet another keybind.
---
emacs/notmuch.el | 40 ++--
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/emacs/notmuch.el b/emacs/notmuch.el
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:46:55 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Make `notmuch-cycle-notmuch-buffers' more Lispy and merge into `notmuch',
eliminating the need to hog yet another keybind.
...
diff --git a/emacs/notmuch.el b/emacs/notmuch.el
index ef4dcc7..539b3a0 100644
---
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:46:55 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Make `notmuch-cycle-notmuch-buffers' more Lispy and merge into `notmuch',
eliminating the need to hog yet another keybind.
What does merge mean here? Will it still be possible for me to hit one
key to unconditionally get
26 matches
Mail list logo
