Re: dynamic and lexical scope, attempted summary with example

[Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1393 bytes --]

() Emanuel Berg <embe8573@student.uu.se>
() Mon, 21 Jul 2014 15:36:26 +0200

   Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org> writes:

   > I find ‘(format "%s%s" A B)’ unbeautiful, personally.

   OK, how would you do it?

I would make sure A and B are always strings and use ‘concat’.
For filenames, i would use ‘(expand-file-name B A)’.

   > I think using terms "insert" and "hard-coded" is
   > confusing in this context.  Also, "eliminated" is
   > imprecise and thus misleading.  To bake a cake, do
   > you eliminate the flour?

   But you understand it, right? I mean, what I mean?

If i answer "no", then both of us may be fooling ourselves,
but in a safe way.  If i answer "yes", then there is only
one fool (me), but the foolishness i am capable of is huge.

   The result of the _insertion_ of literal values at the
   places of the parameters, will result in a function
   that don't use variables (dynamic or lexical) but
   _hard-coded_ values - that issue is _eliminated_.

   Do you think it is correct in terms of technology?

Mu!  (See above.)  Actually, i'd add "places" and "will
result" to my list of confusions.

-- 
Thien-Thi Nguyen
   GPG key: 4C807502
   (if you're human and you know it)
      read my lisp: (responsep (questions 'technical)
                               (not (via 'mailing-list)))
                     => nil

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]