36/287cd6bfefa6d20daf93d154f13e132e47bcaf

   1 Return-Path: <awg@xvx.ca>\r
   2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
   3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
   4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
   5         by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81B3B431FAF\r
   6         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:15:16 -0700 (PDT)\r
   7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
   8 X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
   9 X-Spam-Score: -0.7\r
  10 X-Spam-Level: \r
  11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
  12         tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled\r
  13 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
  14         by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
  15         with ESMTP id TIXVmup1Apd1 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
  16         Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:15:14 -0700 (PDT)\r
  17 Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com\r
  18         [209.85.215.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))\r
  19         (No client certificate requested)\r
  20         by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 459D2431FAE\r
  21         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:15:14 -0700 (PDT)\r
  22 Received: by lahc1 with SMTP id c1so2035200lah.26\r
  23         for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:15:11 -0700 (PDT)\r
  24 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;\r
  25         d=google.com; s=20120113;\r
  26         h=mime-version:sender:x-originating-ip:date:x-google-sender-auth\r
  27         :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state;\r
  28         bh=qvuPXUx5DZB7yU0UIXtkkPhbx72J39t81znuRo1fx9s=;\r
  29         b=ANUs5yZvsB7yV6yO+uuLlc/0VabR2FOMSgB4731hRGZbzOf0H6oE+eD+p1p9Puc1lI\r
  30         0PGK7RhNL3ge7eXT9/+mEiqz3mvz7JbD9pxomaOzL2O/IdPnJZf0fShRPujc1MVNnZlr\r
  31         wgkrsE6iU0Gx6UocZFlWCl45JaPZEj0MqUATuRLayfnYVA+kycszHlHa9NLOjhpxuRsn\r
  32         n96jNrLb6mD/HIjsJQoHl+T80OpXLcFMzeGjuaLZyh4k3iy1gVUWi1BtjgQM50GrUmdp\r
  33         2eBiM83qWgfPhYmMu19Ln36UCD5DBJ+PyH6By7WC6WqQWaYgYG076XVV0tQ4zDygqGQP\r
  34         Yh2Q==\r
  35 MIME-Version: 1.0\r
  36 Received: by 10.152.129.74 with SMTP id nu10mr21127591lab.50.1332990911133;\r
  37         Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:15:11 -0700 (PDT)\r
  38 Sender: awg@xvx.ca\r
  39 Received: by 10.112.29.137 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:15:10 -0700 (PDT)\r
  40 X-Originating-IP: [96.52.216.56]\r
  41 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:15:10 -0600\r
  42 X-Google-Sender-Auth: y3_JFGGaZKohdZ0-x6slw9JSOd0\r
  43 Message-ID:\r
  44  <CAMoJFUum=gohEtrkNas43v6=P8pYvR9L-d49EVUaktWSc7+gZg@mail.gmail.com>\r
  45 Subject: emacs: Function `remove-if' from cl package called at runtime\r
  46 From: Adam Wolfe Gordon <awg+notmuch@xvx.ca>\r
  47 To: Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
  48 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1\r
  49 X-Gm-Message-State:\r
  50  ALoCoQllt1cJvse4LVrFTrkMVigcbW89B9QFLbn9TZMPd1IP46xfAg4G6ZufaaP/mr0k2XTV9kpM\r
  51 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
  52 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
  53 Precedence: list\r
  54 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
  55         <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
  56 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
  57         <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
  58 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
  59 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
  60 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
  61 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
  62         <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
  63 X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:15:16 -0000\r
  64 \r
  65 Hi everyone,\r
  66 \r
  67 As I was fixing the Refrences bug tonight (patch forthcoming), I\r
  68 introduced another usage of a cl library function that produces the\r
  69 warning from emacs:\r
  70 Warning: Function `remove-if' from cl package called at runtime\r
  71 \r
  72 Reading a bit about this warning, it sounds like the reason for it is\r
  73 that remove-if et al. are functions, so they can be replaced by some\r
  74 other package, and the emacs folks don't want packages included with\r
  75 emacs to use them because they would then break if the functions were\r
  76 redefined. Are we worried about this in notmuch? It seems to me like\r
  77 it's mostly political, but I'm pretty new to the emacs lisp world.\r
  78 \r
  79 I remember that some time ago it was decided that we were OK with\r
  80 using functions the cl library where it improves code quality. What do\r
  81 we think of using functions that cause the "called at runtime"\r
  82 warning?\r
  83 \r
  84 -- \r
  85 Adam Wolfe Gordon\r