From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Shrinking the C core Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 23:59:55 +0200 Message-ID: <87y1h7cd2c.fsf@dataswamp.org> References: <87ledwx7sh.fsf@yahoo.com> <877cpfybhf.fsf@yahoo.com> <873503y66i.fsf@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28806"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:Nk9e8AUQLd9FfMKw0uuzz3tIunk= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 16 07:14:31 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qhNdW-0007KM-KK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 16 Sep 2023 07:14:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qhNcT-0006D8-2J; Sat, 16 Sep 2023 01:13:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qhGrM-0002ON-6j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 18:00:21 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qhGrI-0007IZ-Bv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 18:00:19 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qhGrD-0002DC-IQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Sep 2023 00:00:11 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Mail-Copies-To: never Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 01:13:23 -0400 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:310617 Archived-At: Arthur Miller wrote: > We can certainly speak about "old ways", let us take the > or-idiom or how should I call it: initialization of the > default value for optional arguments: > > (defun foo (&optional who-am-I) > (let ((who-am-I (or who-am-I "foo"))) > (message "I am %s." who-am-I))) > > Is that really better than typing: > > (cl-defun foo (&optional (who-am-I "foo")) > (message "I am %s." who-am-I)) > > The user has to learn the idiom, which uses operator "or" to > perform something that visually has nothing to do with the > intention of the code, and also has to type the additional > let-form each and every time. Than the users who are not > familiar with the idiom will perhaps come up with their own > version, using setq or some other thing, and you will really > have to think what the user wanted to say with their code if > you had to debug it. Is it better than seing an initialiser > and knowing directly what is the default value and everyone > using uniform syntax? This is a very good example where the CL way is simply superior. I don't know how many ways I've seen people, including myself, setting the default value: `or', 'unless', `setq', `let' - or forgetting about it, for that matter. But we do have `cl-defun' - in Elisp - so it isn't like we don't have it for anyone to use if and when desired. I learned about `cl-defun' much later than I did &optional but if I want optional arguments now `cl-defun' is a much better choise than `defun', because of the much more clear syntax to provide the default value. -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal