[RFC][PATCH v4] emacs: Re-implement advance/rewind functions of notmuch-show-mode.

[David Edmondson]

On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:09:55 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi David.
> 
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:46:13 +0000, David Edmondson <dme at dme.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 23:01:33 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > * Revert changes to notmuch-show-advance-and-archive.
> > 
> > Why? (I mean, because the change is poor or just that it's unrelated or
> > because I didn't mention it)
> > 
> 
> 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/attachments/20111226/4be94e66/attachment.pgp>