branch: externals/el-job
commit 5a7f3681adbd8f831eadb35da1dcb8130030535c
Author: Martin Edström <meedstro...@gmail.com>
Commit: Martin Edström <meedstro...@gmail.com>
Style
---
el-job-child.el | 16 +++++++---------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/el-job-child.el b/el-job-child.el
index 5af9163cbe..9d253636ca 100644
--- a/el-job-child.el
+++ b/el-job-child.el
@@ -31,8 +31,7 @@ META-LIST1 and META-LIST2 must be lists of identical length,
and each element in them must be a list or nil."
(let (merged)
(while meta-list1
- (push (nconc (pop meta-list1) (pop meta-list2))
- merged))
+ (push (nconc (pop meta-list1) (pop meta-list2)) merged))
(when meta-list2 (error "Lists differed in length"))
(nreverse merged)))
@@ -69,18 +68,17 @@ add that information to the final return value."
(setq start (current-time))
(setq output (funcall func item))
(push (time-since start) metadata)
- ;; REVIEW: `el-job-child--zip' could take nonzero time, not sure
- ;; if it should be included in the benchmark. If yes, move this
- ;; up to above the line that has `time-since'. Reason not is
- ;; maybe runtime changes the longer the `results' gets, and then
- ;; that is not a good benchmark of `item'.
+ ;; REVIEW: Not sure if `el-job-child--zip' should be included in
+ ;; the benchmark. If yes, move this up to above the line that
+ ;; has `time-since'. Reason not is if it takes longer as
+ ;; `results' gets longer, then that is not a good benchmark of
+ ;; `item'. Someone with more Lisp-fu could tell me.
(setq results (el-job-child--zip output results)))
(funcall func)) ;; ??
;; Ensure durations are in same order that ITEMS came in, letting us
;; associate which with which just by index.
(setq metadata (nreverse metadata))
- ;; Timestamp the finish-time. Note that makes the `car' of the
- ;; metadata qualitatively different.
+ ;; Timestamp the finish-time.
(push (current-time) metadata)
(let ((print-length nil)
(print-level nil)
