Re: Moving kbd to subr.el

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:

> OK, so looking even closer at this to develop test cases for the above,
> in the original code we have this convoluted mess:
>
> (if (and (not need-vector)
>          (cl-loop for ch across res
>                   always (and (characterp ch)
>                               (let ((ch2 (logand ch (lognot ?\M-\^@))))
>                                 (and (>= ch2 0) (<= ch2 127))))))
>     (concat (cl-loop for ch across res
>                      collect (if (= (logand ch ?\M-\^@) 0)
>                                  ch (+ ch 128))))
>   res)

Yeah, my eyes glazed over when reading that code the first few times.
:-) 

> But that is equivalent to:
>
>     (<= 0 ch 127)

I think...  you're totally right.  It looks like a very convoluted way
to write (<= 0 ch 127).

But perhaps there's historical reasons for the code being that way?  In
the olden days, Emacs didn't use utf-8 as the character representation,
so perhaps it made sense back then?  (I don't actually recall how
characters were represented in that Mule era.)

> BTW, you can verify the above simplification for yourself using:
>
> (let ((ch 0) accum)
>   (while (< ch #xFFFFFFF)
>     (when (and (characterp ch)
>              (let ((ch2 (logand ch (lognot ?\M-\^@))))
>                (and (>= ch2 0) (<= ch2 127))))
>       (push ch accum))
>     (setq ch (1+ ch)))
>   (let ((standard-output (current-buffer)))
>     (princ accum)))

I had to type it myself to convince myself:

(dotimes (ch #x3FFFFF)
  (unless (equal
           (and (characterp ch)
                (let ((ch2 (logand ch (lognot ?\M-\^@))))
                  (and (>= ch2 0) (<= ch2 127))))
           (<= 0 ch 127))
    (error "%s" ch)))

And no `error'.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no