From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kyle@kyleam.com>
Received: from mp12.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:aacc::])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	by ms4r.migadu.com with LMTPS
	id +KObCVzhymIBVQEATbCpxg
	(envelope-from <kyle@kyleam.com>)
	for <larch@inbox.kyleam.com>; Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:25:32 +0200
Received: from out2.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:aacc::])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	by mp12.migadu.com with LMTPS
	id +NFACVzhymKfpwAAauVa8A
	(envelope-from <kyle@kyleam.com>)
	for <larch@inbox.kyleam.com>; Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:25:32 +0200
X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers.
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kyleam.com; s=key1;
	t=1657463131;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=MYMqNCNL0TnpKMBdOq4b6ZGZt6KbwBiWeVTBW121cVw=;
	b=k52yVUgdp7dC1u2CFhQGZvGGDGs79pkS3yMOYPm/rz+QpOu0hARfcRrjLEOVVfTwJ3mOp0
	ac9vk9e87+r3Xrpq44VRGtgcrf+HJSbaAvI3Xiv5rE8CeAD4gqnqIZWjT2ZkGuNxymQiVp
	roHzpSTo503cDl36IUkTAxMc28j+s26z7yqawOwcgBizNJsfX4xnLNC26CbunG5lRmGTAT
	tiSf2K/KONjq5XYVgdLu2Ls94HL+SEaa0mlOz5ZwNMut7UhTEdgIsp2M0yf9CjoCY3VFjw
	RzHG9P1O+1Rxd5Xz4rsABdKkgLkaHQ+LkgobV2MNKDAFmPgwjGuPSQQ4xmIIxA==
From: Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>
To: Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com>
Cc: piem@inbox.kyleam.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] piem-am: Order attached patches by file name prefix
In-Reply-To: <874jzpuw3s.fsf@localhost>
References: <87czee6x7y.fsf@kyleam.com> <874jzpuw3s.fsf@localhost>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 10:25:25 -0400
Message-ID: <87a69h9h9m.fsf@kyleam.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT
X-Migadu-Auth-User: kyleam.com
X-TUID: n0GJZSH1TLFs

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).