Re: modularity, code for yourself and possibly others

[Tadeus Prastowo]

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 5:30 AM Emanuel Berg <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Tadeus Prastowo wrote:
>
> > Rather than going off tangent now by talking
> > about the extreme case, what about if we
> > confine our discussion _for now_ to your
> > specific case of dealing with your pet
> > function `delete-blank-lines'?
>
> It is not a pet function. I was unaware of the
> existence of the function you mentioned. I have
> replaced the supposed pet with the proper
> function. Your demeaning style isn't
> appreciated BTW.

First, I am sorry if you recognize the term `pet function' as
something pejorative.  AFAIK, the term is not pejorative.  Aside from
that, my intention of using the term is to quickly refer to that
function of yours whose name I didn't recall, but about which I am
sure the referent of the term will not be mistaken.

> > If you agree then let's say we put that pet
> > function to its own file
> > `whitespace-cleaners.el'. As of now, that
> > file will require no other file. So, its user
> > will need to require only that file if that
> > user needs no other function of yours.
> > Problem solved here.
>
> The problem is perhaps solved for another
> person wanting to test my software in an easy
> and straightforward way. For me on the other
> hand, the solution of narrowing down every such
> instance would amount to not 116 Elisp files,
> but to several hundreds! I have shortcuts to
> most of them files [1]. But to navigate
> a system with several hundred files, many of
> them consisting of a single or but a few
> functions, would be a total diaster for me,
> while it would still be uncertain how many
> other people would really use my stuff.
> I.e., a lot of work for me, a crippled system
> for me, to achieve an uncertain gain.
> The primary goal is still to have a good system
> for me, since I wrote it for my purposes.

It's your call.  I just want to address your original question on the
problem that spawned this thread.

> > Now, let's enlarge the case a bit.
> > Suppose now the user also wants to use one
> > other function of yours in file `edit.el'.
> > If you had engineered that function _and_
> > that file properly, then the user would have
> > no need to have your entire Elisp system.
> > Problem solved.
>
> Consistent demeaning style + plain
> insults = *plonk*

Once again, I am sorry if you perceive something demeaning + plain
insults = *plonk* in that paragraph.  But, honestly, I don't see
anything like that in that paragraph.

> PS. Your signature is still incorrect. DS.

Ah, okay, so that's what you mean by giving me the RFC link.  Why
didn't you tell me straight away about what was missing?  Okay, I have
fixed my signature, thanks.

> [1] http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/emacs-init/navigate-fs-keys.el
>
> --
> underground experts united
> http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

-- 
Best regards,
Tadeus