On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:00:21 +0000, David Edmondson <dme@dme.org> wrote: > Understood. For me this fell inside the 'trivial other change' boundary. Fwiw, I don't remember there ever being such a distinction. I think we've always insisted that unrelated changes should be excluded. As a general rule, I think all patches should be as atomic as they can possibly be. I would much rather have more smaller, atomic patches than fewer longer, composite ones. > > And can you please explain why `when' is better than `if' here? Then I > > will know which one to use the next time :) > > `if' allows only a single statement for `then', which results in code like: > > (if foo > (progn > (this) > (that) > (theother))) > > so if there is no `else' clause I've been preferring: > > (when foo > (this) > (that) > (theother)) > > but that's obviously personal and not important in this specific case. That's good. I like it. The if construction always annoyed me a bit for this reason. The when construction is definitely cleaner. jamie.