Subject: bug#66649: 29.1; `project-remember-projects-under' behavior doesn't match its doc

From: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2023 22:16:04 +0200

On 08/11/2023 21:58, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
> Dmitry Gutov<[email-masked]>  writes:
> 
>> On 08/11/2023 10:13, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
>>> I don't think this is the same problem, in
>>> `project-forget-projects-under' there is no manual recursive descent,
>>> just some duplicated code.  We could also re-write it to look like this:
>>> diff --git a/lisp/progmodes/project.el b/lisp/progmodes/project.el
>>> index 95db9d0ef4c..5f1cce160b2 100644
>>> --- a/lisp/progmodes/project.el
>>> +++ b/lisp/progmodes/project.el
>>> @@ -1905,15 +1905,12 @@ project-forget-projects-under
>>>    forgotten projects."
>>>      (interactive "DDirectory: \nP")
>>>      (let ((count 0))
>>> -    (if recursive
>>> -        (dolist (proj (project-known-project-roots))
>>> -          (when (file-in-directory-p proj dir)
>>> -            (project-forget-project proj)
>>> -            (setq count (1+ count))))
>>> -      (dolist (proj (project-known-project-roots))
>>> -        (when (file-equal-p (file-name-directory proj) dir)
>>> -          (project-forget-project proj)
>>> -          (setq count (1+ count)))))
>>> +    (dolist (proj (project-known-project-roots))
>>> +      (when (if recursive
>>> +                (file-in-directory-p proj dir)
>>> +              (file-equal-p (file-name-directory proj) dir))
>>> +        (project-forget-project proj)
>>> +        (setq count (1+ count))))
>>>        (if (zerop count)
>>>            (message "No projects were forgotten")
>>>          (project--write-project-list)
>>> But that would incur a branch in every iteration of `dolist'.
>> LGTM too. The branch-per-iteration is unlikely to move a needle in any
>> realistic scenario.
>>
>> Up to you, whether to install this or keep the original version.
> I don't see a need, this is basically an aesthetic change.  Should we
> close the bug report?

Damien, is there anything else here to do?

Did you perhaps also (or instead) saw a problem with either of the 
docstrings? I'm not sure if I understood the last complaint correctly.