To: Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v4] emacs: Re-implement advance/rewind functions of
	notmuch-show-mode.
In-Reply-To: <87fwg71tdo.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <id:"1324553312-10972-1-git-send-email-dme@dme.org">
	<1324665712-2419-1-git-send-email-dme@dme.org>
	<87ipl7kt82.fsf@gmail.com>
	<cunpqfbtxu2.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>
	<87fwg71tdo.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+107~ga2d0215 (http://notmuchmail.org)
	Emacs/24.0.92.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
From: David Edmondson <dme@dme.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:00:21 +0000
Message-ID: <cun39c7t2mi.fsf@hotblack-desiato.hh.sledj.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:09:55 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmai=
l.com> wrote:
> Hi David.
>=20
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:46:13 +0000, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:01:33 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@=
gmail.com> wrote:
> > > * Revert changes to notmuch-show-advance-and-archive.
> >=20
> > Why? (I mean, because the change is poor or just that it's unrelated or
> > because I didn't mention it)
> >=20
>=20
> Because it is unrelated.

Understood. For me this fell inside the 'trivial other change' boundary.

> And can you please explain why `when' is better than `if' here?  Then I
> will know which one to use the next time :)

`if' allows only a single statement for `then', which results in code like:

     (if foo
        (progn
          (this)
          (that)
          (theother)))

so if there is no `else' clause I've been preferring:

      (when foo
        (this)
        (that)
        (theother))

but that's obviously personal and not important in this specific case.

> > > * Can we split this in two patches?  One for rewind and another for
> > >   advance.
> >=20
> > I'll think about that. Is there a specific reason? I'm not particularly
> > in favour of splitting things just for the sake of it.
> >=20
>=20
> Because they are independent and can be split.  And it is easier to
> review (and work in general, I suppose) with two smaller patches than
> with a single bigger one.

Your git-fu is obviously much stronger than mine. :-) Rebasing (groups
of) patches takes more of my time and is more error prone than I'd like.

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk747nUACgkQaezQq/BJZRbDewCcC6/vNUum8qX21V0qeITYB8y8
ak8AniJxv2eQBywX9ztZF6atZqG0IY9p
=utdM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--