Re: The type of gnus-ignored-from-addresses

[Miles Bader <miles.bader@necel.com>]

Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:
> I don't want to start another discussion about conventions, but...
>
> | 	* gnus-util.el (gnus-orify-regexp): New function.
> | 
> | 	* message.el (gnus-util): Require it.
> | 	(message-dont-reply-to-names): Use gnus-orify-regexp.
>
> ... is preferable to...
>
> | 	Improve the type of gnus-ignored-from-addresses.
> | 	* gnus-util.el (gnus-orify-regexp): New function.
> | 	* message.el (gnus-util): Require it.

Is it?  I think it's often more readable if blank lines are reserved for
separating independent logical changes, which the above clearly aren't.

While too few blank lines can make things hard to read, too _many_ blank
lines can also hurt -- and at a glance I think Didier's entry is
actually a fair-bit more readable than your "better" example, simply
because it's more concise.

[I think it would be even better to use something in between, where the
related stuff was grouped, and the unrelated stuff was blank-line separated.]

-Miles
-- 
Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time.  -- Steven Wright