From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: don provan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Suggestions? Better filetype sniffing -- XHTML vs. HTML Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:25:50 -0700 Message-ID: References: <7i8yisfmqx.fsf@neoscale.com> <7iznb8e648.fsf@neoscale.com> <7e64x48cij.fsf@ada2.unipv.it> <7e4q8qu35x.fsf@ada2.unipv.it> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1126802023 4138 80.91.229.2 (15 Sep 2005 16:33:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:33:43 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 15 18:33:39 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EFwcy-0003iA-JL for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:30:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EFwcy-00058I-1C for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:30:24 -0400 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:25:48 -0500 Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:qnLbrbSHbbgUBFoJvJ+t02mBNdw= Original-Lines: 28 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.5.236.116 Original-X-Trace: sv3-MmNJ31T6hI5NHzmP89Agl98ubESJPRWyx/zGdu08mPx7WRMaPbJZ306NlQEQPp4DQaAT2j3bBT1izYQ!n1nYQoeAt9oKnv4lBJPVcROXso6pX0HGHhigEN5Rto+ZrHJKh5DgmPJ0PdOSPxo= Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:133910 Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:29466 Archived-At: Thien-Thi Nguyen writes: > (setq f '(+ 1 2 3)) > (funcall f) > > would also be "valid", which it is not. I've kinda forgotten what we're talking about now, but I think the question was something about using concepts about function addressing learned from C as a way of explaining quoted function names when learning lisp. So you would only think the above is valid if you thought extern int func(int, int, int); int (*f)(int, int, int); f = func(1, 2, 3); /* or perhaps "&func(1, 2, 3)" */ (*f)(); was valid in C, which it is not. Quoting an expression is really quite a bit different than quoting a function name, so I don't really see any reason to worry about the two being confused. Granted, what is completely unexpected to a C programer is that (setq f '(+ 1 2 3)) (eval f) is valid and does do just what it looks like it does. -don