Re: [Emacs-diffs] master b88e7c8: Make transpose-regions interactive (Bug#30343)

[Karl Fogel]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>I haven't really participated so far since it's definitely a bikeshed's
>color kind of discussion, but since I'm to blame for it, I'll try and
>explain why I brought it up:
>
>I said I "dislike seeing" such code, without any further explanation
>because indeed, there's no strong technical reason behind it (I could
>come up with various technical reasons, but they'd just be
>rationalizations).  I guess it just reflects my "strong types"
>background, where I like my code to be sanity checked by a static
>analyzer.  For Elisp we don't have any strong static analyzer available,
>so we use the next best thing: our byte-compiler's warnings.
>
>With "Elisp embedded in C strings", we don't have any such tool
>support, so it makes me feel "unprotected" (we can't even be sure that
>parentheses are balanced without run-time testing).
>
>I didn't bring it up with the aim to try and change that specific chunk
>of code, but rather to get the opinion of others, and probably also to
>try and influence future code.

I'm not going to push to reinstate the change -- it's not important enough.  
But since you're soliciting opinions, I agree with your reasons above, as well 
as the ones I gave earlier.

However... http://fuchsia.bikeshed.com/, as you said.