Re: message-yank-original issue

[Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:02:03 +0100 Antoine Levitt <antoine.levitt@gmail.com> wrote: 

AL> 14/03/11 20:47, Ted Zlatanov
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:38:06 +0100 Antoine Levitt
>> <antoine.levitt@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
AL> Woops, this one is my fault. Sorry, I didn't think about that.
>> 
>> Yeah I didn't notice it either.  Is my patch a correct fix?

AL> I think so, it's functionally equivalent to the old code (I'm always
AL> confused about the = vs eq vs eql vs equal vs equalp bit (do we really
AL> need FIVE subtly different comparison functions?), but both 'equal' and
AL> 'eq' are equivalent in this case - although comparison is done with
AL> equal in another part of the code)

Heh, yeah, Lisp takes equality very seriously.  Don't forget
`string-equal'.

>> Also recently users reported on gnu.emacs.help (and I can confirm) that
>> the cursor in a reply is below the citation line but above the cited
>> text.  Is that related?  It's funny, I didn't even notice that behavior
>> until I saw the report...  My fingers took care of the motion on their
>> own.

AL> I'm not sure what you mean. Wasn't this the case before? I always had
AL> this behaviour, and that was part of the motivation for the patch. To be
AL> clear, we're talking about

AL> 14/03/11 20:47, Ted Zlatanov
AL> POINT HERE> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:38:06 +0100 Antoine Levitt

AL> right?

Yes.  But maybe I had special code for this...  Never mind me...

AL> Any reason why cl isn't loaded by default, by the way? And is it
AL> considered bad practice for packages to require cl?
>> 
>> For non-Gnus code (and message.el recently became a standalone part of
>> Emacs, loaded without Gnus) it's better to be prudent and stay away from
>> CL functions and macros.

AL> But what's the rationale behind not loading it as part of the standard
AL> emacs load? Is it a loading time issue? The command

AL> time emacs -nw -Q --eval "(require 'cl)" --eval "(kill-emacs)"

AL> does not appear to be noticeably longer than the same one without cl, on
AL> the two machines I've tried. (but maybe they're both too fast to measure
AL> it)

It's been discussed a lot on emacs-devel and even the usage of CL in
general code was discouraged until recently (only cl-macs.el definitions
are OK).  I think CL is not badly needed here so it's hard to justify
it, but if there is a good reason to ask for those functions we will.

Ted