[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: constant `e'
From: |
Daniel Brockman |
Subject: |
Re: constant `e' |
Date: |
Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:33:54 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.51 (gnu/linux) |
Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:
>> Incidentally, I also think `(not (null n))' looks better than `n' ---
>> as do, I believe, most Emacs Lisp programmers.
>
> I disagree with you on both counts. When I see `(not (null n))', it
> takes extra effort mentally to filter out what, to me, is just noise.
Hm! That's interesting.
The concept of `non-nil' is very basic to me, so I do not
have to filter anything out of `(not (null ...))', because
it is already phrased the way I think about it.
>> Take a look at this code:
>
>> (cond (n
>> (bongo-mark-line-forward (prefix-numeric-value n)))
>> ((bongo-region-active-p)
>> (bongo-mark-region (region-beginning) (region-end)))
>> (t
>> (bongo-mark-line-forward)))
>
>> It's ugly, isn't it? It's not just that `(not (null n))' is
>> semantically clearer than a lone `n'; it's also more beautiful.
>
> It's more alliterative, perhaps. But it feels like I'm being talked
> down to - the programmer is saying, in effect "you probably don't
> understand Lisp very well, so I'll make it very very clear".
I had no idea some people read it like that.
Do you feel similarily talked down to when you see C code
like the following?
for (node = list->first; node != NULL; node = node->next)
process (node);
--
Daniel Brockman <address@hidden>
- Re: constant `e', (continued)
Re: constant `e', Daniel Brockman, 2007/02/10
Re: constant `e', Stuart D. Herring, 2007/02/12
Re: constant `e', Daniel Brockman, 2007/02/12
Re: constant `e', David Kastrup, 2007/02/10
Re: constant `e', Daniel Brockman, 2007/02/10
Re: constant `e', Stuart D. Herring, 2007/02/12
Re: constant `e', Stefan Monnier, 2007/02/10
Re: constant `e', Daniel Brockman, 2007/02/10
Re: constant `e', Stefan Monnier, 2007/02/10