[implementations-list] latest revisions

Štěpán Němec stepnem at gmail.com
Fri Feb 12 21:08:23 CET 2010

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 07:28:02PM +0000, Vegard Øye wrote:
> > (I also don't see the point of wrapping `let' around `dolist', am I
> > missing something?)
> `dolist' needs a temporary variable to bind each list element to.

Well, sure, but `dolist' does the binding for you:

(let ((cool 8))
  (dolist (cool '(1 2 3 4)) (prin1 cool))
  (prin1 cool))

Even Emacs Lisp does not suck *that* bad.

> > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> > ;;;;;;;;;;;;; VISUAL MODE BINDINGS ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> > (define-key viper-vi-basic-map "v" 'vimpulse-visual-mode)
> > (define-key viper-vi-basic-map "V" 'vimpulse-visual-mode-linewise)
> >
> > This should be deleted, as you redefine "v" and "V" later anyway, and
> > the following has nothing to do with Visual mode.

My point is that the above lines do not belong *anywhere*, they're just
redundant; starting at l. 2994 of vimpulse-big.el, you have:

;;; Key bindings ;;;
(define-key viper-vi-basic-map "v" 'vimpulse-visual-toggle-normal)
(define-key viper-vi-basic-map "V" 'vimpulse-visual-toggle-line)

... so you're defining the keys again.

> Yes. Visual bindings don't belong in vimpulse-misc-keybindings.el at
> all. The file has turned into a "miscellaneous" section of sorts.
> I think it would be cleaner to have a vimpulse-keys.el file which
> merges vimpulse-modal.el with the keybinding stuff in
> vimpulse-misc-keybindings.el, while the rest could go in
> vimpulse-commands.el or some such.

Maybe, yeah; that would likely prevent situations like the above, at

> I also think the current file names are too long. The libraries
> bundled with either Emacs seldom use more than one hyphen in their
> file names. Viper, for instance, consists of viper.el, viper-cmd.el,
> viper-ex.el, viper-init.el, viper-keym.el, viper-macs.el,
> viper-mous.el and viper-util.el.
> Here's a renaming proposal:
>     vimpulse-dependencies.el                 => vimpulse-depend.el
>     vimpulse-misc-keybindings.el             => vimpulse-keys.el
>     vimpulse-paren-matching.el               => vimpulse-paren.el
>     vimpulse-text-object-system.el           => vimpulse-text.el
>     vimpulse-viper-function-redefinitions.el => vimpulse-viper.el
>     vimpulse-visual-mode.el                  => vimpulse-visual.el
> What do you think?

I don't think that is really necessary -- for one thing, the current
file names describe their contents better than the shorter alternatives
you propose, and besides that, it's all just kinda behind-the-scenes --
most users don't even know about the single files, they're using the
concatenated vimpulse.el.
Which makes more sense to me anyway -- I don't think even the splitting
itself is necessary. 4000 lines might be a lot, but it's not too much IMO,
also not in comparison with some files in Emacs core (like simple.el
with 6655). I personally would just stick to a single file (and do so,
as you see from the line counts I give, sorry for that ;)) -- it's
simply more convenient. It's a PITA for me to look at ten files instead
of one, esp. when some of them really only contain a few lines.



More information about the implementations-list mailing list