Re: bug#68401: 30.0.50; ERC 5.6-git: `erc-cmd-GMSG', `erc-cmd-AMSG', `erc-cmd-GME', `erc-cmd-AME'. 2nd attempt
"J.P." <[email protected]> Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:38:07 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.emacs.erc.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Emanuel Berg <[email protected]> writes: > J.P. wrote: > >> I don't understand the point of adding your purpose-built >> predicate `erc--connected-and-joined-p' if you're not going >> to use it to replace >> >> (lambda () (erc-channel-p (erc-default-target))) >> >> completely. IOW, having both is redundant > Redundant from the POV of `erc--connected-and-joined-p' because it calls `erc--current-buffer-joined-p' (which see). Please compare that function's definition to the lambda. There are overlapping concerns there. That is, one "subsumes" the other, thus obviating the need for it. > ?? > > (lambda () (erc-channel-p (erc-default-target))) > > has been there all along, you then told me to add the > "logical" connectivity test. > > If we can just use the lambda, I'll be happy to drop the test. You can't just use the lambda, but you can lose it entirely in favor of your predicate. > >> If you're not already doing so, please try expanding your >> macro use sites to verify correctness. > > ??? > > My "macro use sites" is what? If you expand one of your `erc-with-all-buffers-of-server' forms with both the lambda and `erc--connected-and-joined-p' present, it should become clear why only the latter is needed.