Re: "simplifications"

[David Kastrup]

"Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden> writes:

> 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".

I am afraid that you are really too eager to interpret my mails as a
personal critique of you and this particular change.  Again: I don't
think this particular case nearly important or relevant enough to
warrant reverting those changes.  But it is not the first such change
I see, and I would prefer to see changes in the byte compiler that
would make such changes a no-brainer, where one does not have to weigh
code efficiency vs. readability.

-- 
David Kastrup