bug#56110: 27+; switching from line-mode to char-mode

[Basil L. Contovounesios]

signal3 [2022-06-22 19:22 +0000] wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 5:23 PM Michael Heerdegen
> <michael_heerdegen@web.de> wrote:
>>
>> That works - but I fail to understand why a simple `let' doesn't suffice
>> (which works as well):
>>
>> Does anybody know?

FWIW, I also fail to see why let wouldn't be equivalent for most
intensive porpoises, but then I wouldn't trust myself to tell a porpoise
from a dolphin.

> I don't know. But, whenever I'm making changes I like to keep the
> smallest hamming distance possible between revisions. Just a pet peeve
> maybe?
>
> So unless there is a reason to avoid using 'let', it seems preferable
> to me. That way the snippet better resembles the version prior to 27+.

Surely rewriting in terms of let increases Hamming distance? ;)

In any case, my vote is for correct and simpler code over a smaller
diff.

> And in that vein, I'm not sure why the unwind-protect was removed.

AFAICT it's redundant because let always unwinds its temporary bindings,
in contrast with the previous add-function and setq which make permanent
modifications that require manual unwinding.

Thanks,

-- 
Basil