Re: `thunk-let'?

[Clément Pit-Claudel]

On 2017-11-09 13:06, Michael Heerdegen wrote:
> Clément Pit-Claudel <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> Why doesn't that macro go to ELPA first, possibly to be integrated in
>> Emacs proper if it's found to be useful?
> 
> I think it certainly is useful.  And it allows you to write nicer code
> because you don't have to use (low-level) thunk objects explicitly
> (thus, it's a reasonable abstraction).  I'm just only 97%, and not 100%,
> sure that it is the optimal solution for the problem it solves.  So,
> "half baked" is an exaggeration.  Anyway, the macro makes it much
> easier to write more efficient code in an easy way and clean style, so I
> don't doubt it is useful now, in Emacs.

Thanks, but maybe you were responding to Drew and me at once?

I didn't call the code half-baked :) I didn't even read it, in fact. I'm just 
trying to get a better feel for what goes straight into Emacs, and what goes 
into ELPA for experimentation.  I was reacting to this:

> Well, it's in subr-x because I'm not sure that it is yet a good idea to
> "advertize it so loudly" as Stefan uses to say. 

That sounded a lot like the reason we usually invoke to put stuff into MELPA.

Clément.