From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Whats wrong with this defcustom? Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:18:29 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: <874mxzio7e.fsf@debian.uxu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1406686826 16913 80.91.229.3 (30 Jul 2014 02:20:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 02:20:26 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 30 04:20:20 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XCJV4-0006DZ-Uu for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 04:20:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48687 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XCJV4-00088I-DT for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 22:20:18 -0400 Original-Path: usenet.stanford.edu!news.kjsl.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!rt.uk.eu.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Original-Lines: 60 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: SIvZRMPqRkkTHAHL6NkRuw.user.speranza.aioe.org Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:gewO+WDPYSBSim5QwzlLw+GJdqI= Mail-Copies-To: never Original-Xref: usenet.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:206717 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:98992 Archived-At: Robert Thorpe writes: > What you quote above is mostly what Thien-Thi Nguyen > wrote. Well, yeah, he wrote it, but you quoted it, and the last line of the quote, you wrote. > He used (some char) means "equivalent to" or > "identical to". Yes, I understood him. > The lisp reader translates '(foo bar) into (quote > (foo bar)) which is evaluated. The quote special form > doesn't evaluate it's argument. So, evaluating it > produces "(foo bar)". I wrote "returned" because > quote is rather like a function that's called and > returns something. Yeah, in languages such as C you have a function and a type for the return value and then an explicit return keyword to denote when it happens, and what is returned. In Elisp you have types but not typed functions and everything evaluates to something (but can have side-effects just the same). I don't know if there are some subtle differences between returning and evaluating, except for that evaluating seems more flexible as it can be done in several ways (for example, prog1 and progn) but perhaps it can also be more confusing as it isn't typed or explicit (not as clear as in C anyway), and also because while everything evaluates to something, it is far from always that result is what matters. Tho I prefer Lisp because of its power and the dynamics to it (evaluating parts while working with the code, etc.) I actually think C is easier to read (when I write C and Elisp, I mean). What I like with Lisp is that you can do almost everything with it. It is like Bruce Lee. Paradigm free, the style of no style. Technique doesn't matter (that much), but delivery (execution) does. It is like a boxer throwing 200 jabs in a fight. Only 25 lands - those were all jabs, i.e., identical techniques. What made some land and some not was factors external to the techniques themselves. So that is why I don't like paradigmic discussions any more than outright language wars, because I don't see that as being the thing that matters. > Equality is something else, as you've found. I have? What I meant, if something evaluates to something, and something else evaluates to something - are they the same? - these somethings (before evaluating) should be put into Lisp functions so we can see for ourselves. Only then, question is, what function should be used? -- underground experts united