From: <boj...@dd...> - 2004-02-21 14:32:52
|
lawrence mitchell <we...@gm...> writes: > Johan Bockgård wrote: > >> Couldn't you just skip the `-process-boundp-and' part? > > erc-alive-p? > > or perhaps, erc-running-p, or something similar. I.e. something that > indicates the intent of the function, rather than what it does. I thought of that. There is already an `erc-process-alive', though, which, incidentaly, rules out `erc-running-p' as well. Also, the proposed function does in fact not test anything beyond processp-ness. (defun erc-process-alive () "Return non-nil when `erc-process' is open or running." (and (boundp 'erc-process) (processp erc-process) (memq (process-status erc-process) '(run open)))) -- Johan Bockgård |