From: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>
To: Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] test: (hopefully) better test prerequisites
In-Reply-To: <87zkfun5hf.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <1321494986-18998-1-git-send-email-dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>
	<874ny36rhc.fsf@servo.finestructure.net>
	<yf64ny3gcu4.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi> <8739dmopcu.fsf@gmail.com>
	<yf6wrayg83d.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi> <87zkfun5hf.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.9+73~ged20210 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1
	(i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:55:30 +0200
Message-ID: <yf6ty6195dp.fsf@taco2.nixu.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:17:16 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If we follow this pattern than all code like:
> 
>   f() {
>     if (!done_once)
>         do_once
> 
>     do_more
>   }
> 
> Should be rewritten using dynamic functions. I do not think I agree with
> this :)
> 
> Anyway, all above is just IMHO.  You should probably go ahead and
> prepare a patch implementing this approach for others to review.

I probably won't. While I was looking something in your patch and I was
thinking how to fix I just got this idea and wrote it to see whether
other's see as I do. The discussion got a bit side-tracked as I just
look this tiny part of the whole. Your later patch looks more
understandable than the previous (which emacs || emacs || return) and
it is something I can live with :) -- Just for now I'm not going to 
work on the whole anyway.

> 
> Regards,
>   Dmitry
> 

Thanks,
Tomi