Re: Too fine design granularity leads to numerous macro/function/command existed in Emacs.

[Emanuel Berg]

Hongyi Zhao wrote:

>> With the maximalist approach it is unavoidable that
>> sometimes one function can do 1 2 and 3, and another can do
>> 2, 3, and 4, so it seems they have "too fine granularity"
>> in your phrasing but outside the intersection is actually
>> ... 1 and 4!
>
> Then why not combine the two into one, which can do 1, 2, 3,
> and 4?

Well, assuming the situation actually is like that, then
probably because no one feels the need or desire to do that
because after all the work coming up with a common interface
and all the work pruning the function that gets dropped from
all existing code by every Joe Elisp Hacker to ever use it
across the planet, and after fixing every bug that was
introduced in the merge process and calming everyone that gets
upset on mailing lists and so on ... THEN ... you end up with,
not 1 2 3 4, but: 1 2 3 4 :(

>> underground experts united
>
> Why do you use the above sentence as the signature? Does it
> have any profound implications?

Those who know know:

  https://dataswamp.org/~incal/figures/emacs/emacs-uxu-submarine-spetsnaz.png

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal