From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: A bit further toward the flamewar Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:28:42 +0200 Message-ID: <87hb3cq8n9.fsf@pobox.com> References: <20111012153958.GA20242@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> <87pqi2ca3q.fsf@gnu.org> <8739exry15.fsf@pobox.com> <20111013112709.GA28078@ccellier.rd.securactive.lan> <87r52hc6hu.fsf@gnu.org> <87r52grk90.fsf@pobox.com> <1318531070.78010.YahooMailNeo@web37908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1318580944 19604 80.91.229.12 (14 Oct 2011 08:29:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , "guile-user@gnu.org" To: linasvepstas@gmail.com Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 14 10:28:56 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1REd8Q-0006sE-L7 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:28:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46137 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1REd8P-0003yl-MI for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:28:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:50022) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1REd8M-0003yf-0Q for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:28:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1REd8K-0006ff-JO for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:28:49 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:58063 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1REd8K-0006fX-Gp; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:28:48 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A207639E; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:28:46 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=PeCB1TUpEUCLOvewdwabrw2ehdI=; b=KBZY6y zv3Y0s0Hrb71qZYP8ugt2g2YV7p1M9vGIqg0hys6vCCVU9zIk3A9XMnyHZ6pTOqC s45ifWbP2pLmNvvHLsrvn1YmVveIVgkU1g3ULosE87NrdP6PY+OLoUFbXNe+BAQr hmOCDmHMi8Vzl9RbC5rfhuaxK7t1xycTnyx5c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=XoaReWtaXsnXAutg2x17rNXHcL2/gj/L bZOXBtRmftV+qhaBFfKZfr/wF94QelfVBvQygfCU/h8Klr4XcU4ec5w2xsSxM4hX Cn9NdbT14DJ66gcVyXUoEK9UcXK5gUSzzWRJF3M+udPo6kiRQF+59t+PhexBTYV5 +ojB+Vcwx9w= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524F9639B; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:28:46 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB32D6398; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:28:45 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Linas Vepstas's message of "Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:42:45 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8878D01C-F63E-11E0-9732-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:8883 Archived-At: On Thu 13 Oct 2011 23:42, Linas Vepstas writes: > In the code that I work on, in (func a b), its rarely the case that a > and b are merely strings or lists; they're usually some fairly complex > structure, where e.g. 'b' is a list where car and cadr must be > strings, and caddr may or may not be another list, with certain > expectations about car, cadr, etc. In this case, I find `match' to be useful. The structure of the pattern matches the structure of the input data, so it is much better than cadaddring down a list. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/