[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "simplifications"
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
Re: "simplifications" |
Date: |
Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:32:24 +0100 |
On Nov 19, 2007 1:21 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> On the other hand,
> as long as it degrades code quality
"Code quality" is an ambiguous metric, unless you define it. I suppose
you're using some variant of the "code quality = efficiency"
equivalence. Obviously I wasn't. That does not mean that I didn't
think of efficiency (I did, or I wouldn't have done measurements of
ring-member's speed). Though I agree that currently (car (cdr x)) is
faster than (cadr x), I still don't see how that will affect much to
clients of ring.el unless they're doing a quite performance-oriented
use of it. OTOH, code is a bit more readable now IMHO.
> I'd prefer people to refrain from
> doing large-scale "cleanups" or "simplifications" of that kind.
That's about a dozen trivial changes in a package with 165 non-empty,
non-comment lines. Perhaps we should previously agree also in the
definition of "large scale".
> Before we are starting a trend here, it would be nice if the
> optimizations making such changes not have an impact on efficiency
> would be in place.
With this, I agree. You see, I was sure we would find some common
ground after all...
Juanma
- Re: "simplifications", (continued)
- Re: "simplifications", Richard Stallman, 2007/11/19
- Re: "simplifications", Stefan Monnier, 2007/11/20
- Re: "simplifications", Stephen J. Turnbull, 2007/11/21
- Re: "simplifications", David Kastrup, 2007/11/21
- Re: "simplifications", Stephen J. Turnbull, 2007/11/21
Re: "simplifications", Juanma Barranquero, 2007/11/19
Re: "simplifications", Miles Bader, 2007/11/19
Re: "simplifications", Richard Stallman, 2007/11/19