From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
To: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: Strings vs symbols in notmuch-search-result-format
In-Reply-To: <87mxrnn964.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org>
References: <87mxrnn964.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.4 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1
	(i486-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:34:50 -0800
Message-ID: <878w0zmiit.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 18:37:55 -0500, Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> wro=
te:
> I've started to look at the elisp, and wondered why
> notmuch-search-result-format expected strings rather than symbols for
> the field names, i.e.:
...
> Perhaps there's a good argument for strings, but if not, the latter is
> more idiomatic, and a bit more efficient too (comparisons will just be
> pointer compares (via assq) rather than something like a strcmp (assoc)).


I'm not sure that this is my code. But I do know that most of the emacs
lisp code I've written is very non-idiomatic and without good
justification.

Please don't look at my elisp code and assume it is sane at all. I'm
looking forward to the day where "git blame -- emacs/*.el" doesn't show
my name at all...

Said another way, please feel free to post improvements for any strange
elisp you see, (C code too, of course).

=2DCarl

=2D-=20
carl.d.worth@intel.com

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFM3Jm66JDdNq8qSWgRAnpwAKCTsvGL91PmrD1T2XYyqvxMkJn85QCfZyvd
ALZ0nGS5M9PoOT47eebSvgk=
=5hjE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--