Remove unused internal or unexported functions

[alexandear]

This PR removes unused internal or unexported functions reported by the deadcode analyzer.

Details

❯ deadcode ./...
internal/action/infocomplete.go:138:6: unreachable func: contains
internal/buffer/line_array.go:289:22: unreachable func: LineArray.deleteByte
internal/config/plugin.go:148:6: unreachable func: FindAnyPlugin
internal/config/rtfiles.go:102:21: unreachable func: namedFile.Name
internal/screen/screen.go:240:6: unreachable func: InitSimScreen
internal/util/profile.go:19:6: unreachable func: Tic
internal/util/profile.go:24:6: unreachable func: Toc
internal/util/util.go:238:6: unreachable func: IsUpperWordChar
internal/util/util.go:244:6: unreachable func: IsLowerWordChar
internal/util/util.go:514:6: unreachable func: ParseSpecial
pkg/highlight/highlighter.go:54:6: unreachable func: combineLineMatch
pkg/highlight/parser.go:268:6: unreachable func: HasIncludes
pkg/highlight/parser.go:276:6: unreachable func: hasIncludesInRegion
pkg/highlight/unicode.go:39:6: unreachable func: DecodeCharacterInString
pkg/highlight/unicode.go:75:6: unreachable func: CharacterCountInString

[dmaluka]

These may be actually occasionally useful for profiling?

BTW I didn't even know about the existence of this internal/util/profile.go until now (and I find it rather nice). (And BTW also I didn't know about the existence of the memusage command.)

[alexandear]

It's not a big deal to write two lines when we need to profile something. For now, I propose removing redundant code that is not used.

[dmaluka]

What exactly would we achieve by removing it?

[alexandear]

Removing unnecessary functions will allow refactoring the util package into something more meaningful with a better name.

The package name util is considered a bad package name according to https://go.dev/blog/package-names#bad-package-names.

[dmaluka]

refactoring the util package into something more meaningful with a better name.

Like what?

[JoeKar]

The package name util is considered a bad package name according to https://go.dev/blog/package-names#bad-package-names.

So it's the usual ideal world example which would have been nice in the moment it has been respected from the beginning. But unfortunately the world isn't ideal, it hasn't been considered from the beginning and thus util is grown historically by throwing everything into it which doesn't fit into the other base packages.
I wouldn't say that we're against such a cleanup process, but currently we've bigger construction sites at other places.

Like what?

As said by @dmaluka or at least how I interpret it:
If you have a much better suggestion, please go ahead.
But remember, especially with the lua.go in util we most probably face problems with plugin interfaces.