From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jean Louis Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: (*) -> 1 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 17:54:16 +0300 Message-ID: References: <87y1q1kvdm.fsf@web.de> <87h6wpkrlq.fsf@web.de> <87zgahj7h3.fsf@web.de> <878rhzvs1h.fsf@web.de> <87ilh28w9u.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39307"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.9+54 (af2080d) (2022-11-21) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 19 16:03:41 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1pIWS5-0009yJ-In for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:03:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pIWRT-0007i9-98; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 10:03:03 -0500 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 1pIWRS-0007hu-CU for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 10:03:02 -0500 Original-Received: from stw1.rcdrun.com ([217.170.207.13]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pIWRQ-0004eA-G5 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 10:03:02 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([::ffff:197.239.7.243]) (AUTH: PLAIN admin, TLS: TLS1.3,256bits,ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by stw1.rcdrun.com with ESMTPSA id 0000000000103951.0000000063C95BA7.0000490D; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 08:03:02 -0700 Mail-Followup-To: Michael Heerdegen , help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ilh28w9u.fsf@web.de> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.170.207.13; envelope-from=bugs@gnu.support; helo=stw1.rcdrun.com X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SBL=0.141, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:142425 Archived-At: * Michael Heerdegen [2023-01-19 16:56]: > Jean Louis writes: >=20 > > Did you find it? If you did, let me know. I do not know how to find > > that. >=20 > Yes, I did. After approximately 1 minute for every function I tried. > Believe it or not (I guess you don't believe it and add something weird > to your list instead that nobody can...etc. instead of starting to invest > your own time to really try to understand). You found examples I am searching, though you can't provide references where (*) is useful. And I said it is mystery made by Gods. Super beings who for unknown reasons know everything, and do what they want, without knowledge available for us human. =F0=9F=98=89 Did you maybe find this in Emacs sources? -*- mode: grep; default-directory: "~/Programming/Software/emacs/" -*- Grep started at Thu Jan 19 17:44:12 find -H . -type d \( -path \*/SCCS -o -path \*/RCS -o -path \*/CVS -o -path= \*/MCVS -o -path \*/.src -o -path \*/.svn -o -path \*/.git -o -path \*/.hg= -o -path \*/.bzr -o -path \*/_MTN -o -path \*/_darcs -o -path \*/\{arch\} = \) -prune -o \! -type d \( -name .\#\* -o -name \*.beam -o -name \*.vee -o = -name \*.jam -o -name \*.o -o -name \*\~ -o -name \*.bin -o -name \*.lbin -= o -name \*.so -o -name \*.a -o -name \*.ln -o -name \*.blg -o -name \*.bbl = -o -name \*.elc -o -name \*.lof -o -name \*.glo -o -name \*.idx -o -name \*= =2Elot -o -name \*.fmt -o -name \*.tfm -o -name \*.class -o -name \*.fas -o= -name \*.lib -o -name \*.mem -o -name \*.x86f -o -name \*.sparcf -o -name = \*.dfsl -o -name \*.pfsl -o -name \*.d64fsl -o -name \*.p64fsl -o -name \*.= lx64fsl -o -name \*.lx32fsl -o -name \*.dx64fsl -o -name \*.dx32fsl -o -nam= e \*.fx64fsl -o -name \*.fx32fsl -o -name \*.sx64fsl -o -name \*.sx32fsl -o= -name \*.wx64fsl -o -name \*.wx32fsl -o -name \*.fasl -o -name \*.ufsl -o = -name \*.fsl -o -name \*.dxl -o -name \*.lo -o -name \*.la -o -name \*.gmo = -o -name \*.mo -o -name \*.toc -o -name \*.aux -o -name \*.cp -o -name \*.f= n -o -name \*.ky -o -name \*.pg -o -name \*.tp -o -name \*.vr -o -name \*.c= ps -o -name \*.fns -o -name \*.kys -o -name \*.pgs -o -name \*.tps -o -name= \*.vrs -o -name \*.pyc -o -name \*.pyo \) -prune -o -type f \( -iname \*.= el \) -exec grep --color=3Dauto -i -nH --null -e \"\(\\\*\)\" \{\} + =2E/lisp/progmodes/verilog-mode.el:9311: ;; To advance past either "(*)" = or "(* ... *)" don't forward past first * =2E/lisp/progmodes/verilog-mode.el:9783: ;; To advance past either "= (*)" or "(* ... *)" don't forward past first * =2E/lisp/progmodes/verilog-mode.el:9977: ;; To advance past either "(*)" or= "(* ... *)" don't forward past first * =2E/lisp/wid-edit.el:2569: :on "(*)" =2E/lisp/international/latin1-disp.el:2319: (?\ "(*)") Grep finished with 5 matches found at Thu Jan 19 17:44:48 I was reading about macros on Reddit Why does lisp allow AND/OR operators to have 0 or 1 operands? : lisp: https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/p3o25t/comment/h8vru39/ And I found some example of macro, it seems only that it saves some time to programmer to write shorter macro rather than little longer macro https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/p3o25t/why_does_lisp_allow_andor_ope= rators_to_have_0_or/h8vru39/?context=3D8&depth=3D9 But apart from similar mathematical explanations which do not lead to answer how is it useful to somebody in Lisp, I did not find enlightenment. I can read by "stylwarning" user: > It makes generalizing things easier and debugging easier. It also > follows the arithmetic functions like + and * which allow zero or > more arguments. I can't find useful Lisp expression of "generalizing easier" with (*) or "debugging easier" with (*). > Simple example: I can comment out parts of an ABD/OR while debugging > without having to rewrite the whole condition if I=E2=80=99m left with fe= wer > than 2 cases. That person indicates that the purpose would be temporary sketching of functions. Though that I cannot get confirmed. For any bug in programming language one could find some invented other purpose, why not. It does not mean that authors intended it for that purpose of sketching. > A more complex example would involve writing macros. Say I=E2=80=99m writ= ing > a macro and I have an accumulated list of conditions CX I must > satisfy. It is nice to be able to write > `(and ,@cx) > and not the comparatively annoying > (cond > ((null cx) `t) > ((null (cdr cx)) (car cx)) > (t `(and ,@cx))) --=20 Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/