From ac2072cdbfcdc61c55df78303e753b5c0bdff4bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Juanma Barranquero Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:57:46 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Two more entries (yes, I'm easily amused). --- etc/ChangeLog | 8 ++++++-- etc/DEVEL.HUMOR | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/etc/ChangeLog b/etc/ChangeLog index 5e93cf72807..4f5053aa960 100644 --- a/etc/ChangeLog +++ b/etc/ChangeLog @@ -1,13 +1,17 @@ +2006-11-10 Juanma Barranquero + + * DEVEL.HUMOR: Two more entries. + 2006-11-10 Carsten Dominik * orgcard.tex (section{Archiving}): Document C-TAB. (section{TODO Items and Checkboxes}): Checkbox keys moved to this section, added documentation for the key `C-c #'. -2006-11-05 Slawomir Nowaczyk (tiny change) +2006-11-05 Slawomir Nowaczyk (tiny change) * emacs.py (eargs): Provide eldoc message for builtin types. - Make sure eargs always outputs sentinel, to avoid emacs freeze. + Make sure eargs always outputs sentinel, to avoid Emacs freeze. 2006-10-22 Chong Yidong diff --git a/etc/DEVEL.HUMOR b/etc/DEVEL.HUMOR index 94d86407dd4..9e7e4a9910b 100644 --- a/etc/DEVEL.HUMOR +++ b/etc/DEVEL.HUMOR @@ -136,3 +136,24 @@ without attempting any course of action that requires an advance course in divination. There'd be quite a sensational market for that, you know." -- Emilio Lopes and David Kastrup + +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + "[T]here may be a good reason since the code explicitly checks for +this; see keyboard.c:789 [...]" + "I think I understand, but I can't find the code in keyboard.c. Do +you really mean 'line 789'? Of which revision?" + "Sorry; by 789, I mean 3262 :-P" + -- Chong Yidong and Stefan Monnier + +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + + "[...] In my opinion, your change does not either increase or +decrease readability. It's a tossup." + "Uh, setting tem to '', an artificial empty string, in order to have +j incremented once again before breaking out of the finished loop is +readable? + Is this kind of 'readable' synonymous to 'comprehensible with +serious effort', reminiscent of mathematicians' use of 'trivial' as +synonymous with 'provable with serious effort'?" + -- RMS and David Kastrup -- 2.39.5