On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:18:46 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> Does this really warrant a v2, or might we simply leave it as yet
> another victim for Tomi's uncrustify-for-elisp [1] ?
Pushing incorrectly indented code should be banned, in my opinion[1]. I'd
be tempted to have some pre-commit hooks to
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:18:46 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Does this really warrant a v2, or might we simply leave it as yet
another victim for Tomi's uncrustify-for-elisp [1] ?
Pushing incorrectly indented code should be banned, in my opinion[1]. I'd
be tempted to have some
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:14:57 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:23:55 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet
> > wrote:
> > > Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
> >
> > +1, but why not replace non-branching
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:06:17 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
>
> Does this change correctly re-indent the line following the if/unless?
It does...
Or so I thought... I appear
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:23:55 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
>
> +1, but why not replace non-branching `if' with `when' as well?
I was planning to do that when the `unless'
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:23:55 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
+1, but why not replace non-branching `if' with `when' as well?
I was planning to do
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:06:17 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
Does this change correctly re-indent the line following the if/unless?
It does...
Or so
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:14:57 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:23:55 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
+1, but why
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
Does this change correctly re-indent the line following the if/unless?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:42:55 +0100, Xavier Maillard
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:23:55 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet
> > wrote:
> > > Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
> >
> > +1, but why not replace
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:23:55 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> > Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
>
> +1, but why not replace non-branching `if' with `when' as well?
I tend to use WHEN for case I need to execute
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:42:55 +0100, Xavier Maillard
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:23:55 +, David Edmondson wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet
> > wrote:
> > > Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
> >
> > +1, but why not replace
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
+1, but why not replace non-branching `if' with `when' as well?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
+1, but why not replace non-branching `if' with `when' as well?
pgpuhUlvebeLM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:23:55 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
+1, but why not replace non-branching `if' with `when' as well?
I tend to use WHEN for
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:42:55 +0100, Xavier Maillard xav...@maillard.im wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:23:55 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
+1,
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:42:55 +0100, Xavier Maillard xav...@maillard.im wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:23:55 +, David Edmondson d...@dme.org wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
+1,
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
Does this change correctly re-indent the line following the if/unless?
pgppn8eS1pTGG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
+1
/Xavier
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet wrote:
> Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
>
+1
Regards,
Dmitry
> ---
> emacs/notmuch-address.el |6 +++---
> emacs/notmuch-hello.el | 20 ++--
> emacs/notmuch-show.el| 12 ++--
>
Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
---
emacs/notmuch-address.el |6 +++---
emacs/notmuch-hello.el | 20 ++--
emacs/notmuch-show.el| 12 ++--
emacs/notmuch.el |8
4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
---
emacs/notmuch-address.el |6 +++---
emacs/notmuch-hello.el | 20 ++--
emacs/notmuch-show.el| 12 ++--
emacs/notmuch.el |8
4 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:33:06 +0100, Pieter Praet pie...@praet.org wrote:
Less code, same results, without sacrificing readability.
+1
Regards,
Dmitry
---
emacs/notmuch-address.el |6 +++---
emacs/notmuch-hello.el | 20 ++--
emacs/notmuch-show.el| 12
23 matches
Mail list logo
