Subject: Re: bug#75521: scratch/igc: Delete unused macro DEFVAR_LISP_NOPROX

From: Pip Cet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 21:04:14 +0000

"Eli Zaretskii" <[email-masked]> writes:

>> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:52:13 +0000
>> From: Pip Cet <[email-masked]>
>> Cc: Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>>
>> "Eli Zaretskii" <[email-masked]> writes:
>>
>> >> NSTATICS was last increased by Paul in 2013 (4195afc389bb).
>> >
>> > Actually, it was a year before, but I don't see how that changes the
>> > fact that redundant protecting should be avoided.
>>
>> That sentence is the straw that broke the camel's back.
>>
>> It's not a fact, it's an individual opinion which virtually everyone
>> else disagrees with (for very good reasons).  I certainly do.  Literally
>> the only argument that has been advanced to support this *opinion* is
>> that removing the *three* remaining _NOPROs (which are, at this point,
>> NOT redundant, but buggy) would somehow cause us to run out of NSTATICS,
>> which would mean more than doubling our staticpro calls overnight,
>> adding more than a thousand staticpros.
>
> It isn't an opinion.  Wasting memory is bad, period.

This is too ridiculous to leave uncommented: staticpro does not allocate
or increase memory usage in any way.  No memory is wasted.  staticvec
has a static size, and memory in it that's unused is not available for
other purposes.

(Of course, both the existence of a separate _NOPRO macro and the
now-redundant font_style_table vector do waste memory, which is one of
the reasons why my patch, which is being rejected because "wasting
memory is bad", removed them.)

> All your other arguments are about something else, and are definitely
> opinions.  (Though I don't understand since when or why "opinion"
> became a derogatory word around here.)

You claimed your opinion was a fact.  That might have been an honest
mistake, but it was pointed out to you and you responded with another
falsehood.

There's only so much good faith one can assume.

Pip