[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Question about `cond*'
From: |
Sean Whitton |
Subject: |
Re: Question about `cond*' |
Date: |
Thu, 03 Oct 2024 12:14:16 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Hello,
On Wed 02 Oct 2024 at 11:35pm -04, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> > I can only assume it was a mistake. The question is should the feature
> > be called `cond-star' or `cond*'.
>
> I think `cond*' is a more natural name for the feature.
> That is what users will think of -- to do (require 'cont-star)
> would require a little extra bit of trivial knowledge.
>
> I called the file `cond-star.el' to avoid the inconvenience that
> an asterisk in the file name could cause. But it woukd be better
> if users did not have to know that file name.
>
> `cond*' really ought to be preloaded.
Given that it isn't used in a single place yet, and we have repeatedly
refused to preload cl-lib, that does not seem appropriate.
--
Sean Whitton
- Question about `cond*', Michelangelo Rodriguez, 2024/10/01
- Re: Question about `cond*', Eli Zaretskii, 2024/10/01
- Re: Question about `cond*', Eli Zaretskii, 2024/10/03
- Re: Question about `cond*', Andrea Corallo, 2024/10/04
- Re: Question about `cond*', Richard Stallman, 2024/10/05
- Re: Question about `cond*', Sean Whitton, 2024/10/06
- Re: Question about `cond*', Eli Zaretskii, 2024/10/06
- Re: Question about `cond*', Stefan Kangas, 2024/10/01
- Re: Question about `cond*', Eli Zaretskii, 2024/10/01
- Re: Question about `cond*', Alfred M. Szmidt, 2024/10/02