Re: bad fixes to a higher level problem

[Wes Hardaker <wes@hardakers.net>]

>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:43:12 +0100, drkm <darkman_spam@yahoo.fr> said:

>> (while (and (not (eobp))
>> -               (< level (gnus-summary-thread-level)))
>> +               (setq thlevel (gnus-summary-thread-level))
>> +               (< level thlevel))

drkm> Why introduce `thlevel' if you don't use it ?  Are there other
drkm> reference to this variable, not shown in the patch ?

Welcome to confusing elisp 101.  Elisp is naturally obfuscated,
fortunately, so I don't have to work hard to make it that way.

The (setq thlevel) exists within the and statement, which means the
results of the setq is evaluated before the < operation is called.  It
was the < operation that was causing problems with a nil argument.  I
had 2 choices: use a temporary variable to store the results (thlevel)
or call (gnus-summary-thread-level) twice, once in the and to check
that it was !nil and once in the <.  I suppose, actually, it would
have been better to do something like:

  (< level (or (gnus-summary-thread-level) 0))

That would have dropped the need for the temp var.

-- 
"In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap,
 and much more difficult to find."  -- Terry Pratchett