Re: [PATCH] piem-am: Order attached patches by file name prefix

[Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>]

Ihor Radchenko writes:

> Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> writes:
>
>> If you're commenting more generally on the _code_ of
>> piem-gnus-am-ready-mbox and piem-notmuch-am-ready-mbox, I'm open to
>> suggestions for extracting out any remaining shared bits, but my hunch
>> is that most directions would obscure things.
>
> I referred to both code and the docstring.
> I'd define a separate function that inserts am-ready mbox:

As you can probably guess from my last sentence, I don't think
maintaining that extra level of indirection in piem.el buys enough to be
worth the decrease in readability.  But that's of course a judgment
call.

> I do agree that using side-effects inside `and' is confusing and `when'
> should be preferred.
>
> However, we are talking about an opposite situation here.
> No side effects and we intend to provide a return value.
> The cites style convention does not necessarily apply in reverse except
> that `when' should not ideally be used.

I'm not claiming it's symmetric: I mentioned cases where I prefer `and
-> when`, but you're right that that doesn't go in the other direction.
So I agree with what you say here, as far as I can see.

> When choosing between `and' and `if' I personally also dislike using
> (and condition1 condition2 ... return-value)
> [...]

My tastes don't align with yours here.

> Of course, this is a very minor stylistic comment - [...]

Of course.  Thanks for taking the time to expand on your opinion.

Pushed (6776cacf).