Subject: Re: bug#1321: process-lines

From: "Peder O. Klingenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 09:37:38 +0100

On 15 Mar, 2015, at 0:45, Daniel Colascione <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> What about defining a `process-lines-2' that takes keyword arguments and
> accepts a list for PROGRAM?

That’s another possibility, of course.  But in my opinion, the &rest is usually a more convenient API for the callers, saving them the trouble of consing up a new list.  Also, I find functions with -N suffixes to be less descriptive names than they should be.

In my haste to send a patch last night, I managed to send the wrong version, one that didn’t work as advertised.  Sorry.  Please ignore my previous patch and consider this one instead:

...Peder...
-- 
Sløv uten dop