Hi Maxim! Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> writes: > Thanks for your comments, they've already made this proposed change much > better!
You did that, they only may have pointed somewhere, but the effort is yours, so thank you again. >> That cleanup seems to me responsibility of that .emacs maintainer >> instead of something to take into account in .dir-locals. ;-) > > Indeed, it could be seen that way! The good news is that it doesn't > seem to cause any problems anyway, should they forget an entry for Guix > there. Cool, one thing less to worry then. >> If there is some way this may happen, then this call is OK, but I'd try >> to stay with a cheaper push unless it's really needed, as O(1) < O(n), >> for almost every n. :-) > > The way I could easily trigger this was to open a dired buffer, and > hitting 'g' to refresh its contents. That usually is bind to revert-buffer, and they're being loaded again, so you're right. Was the definition for other modes intended? I didn't noticed because I copied directly the code onto scheme-mode sexp without looking at the context, what a reviewer... ;-P > I'll be sending a v3 with the fboundp woopsie above fixed. I've taken a look to v3 and LGTM. Even the answer to the question is no, I wouldn't send another patch only for that hypothetical change. Anybody can speak up if they have any objection; if they don't, I think you should push the patch. Happy hacking! Miguel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
