Re: A style question

"Tim Bradshaw" <tfb+google@xxxxxxxx> writes:

On Feb 28, 3:40 pm, Richard M Kreuter <kreu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(dotimes (i 100)
(format t "~[~[FizzBuzz~:;Fizz~]~:;~[Buzz~:;~D~]~]~%" (mod i 3) (mod i 5) i))

Best I could do on one cup of coffee.

Good, but you'd get extra points for avoiding the explicit FizzBuzz in
there. Off the top of my head I think:
(format t "~&~[Fizz~;~]~[Buzz~;~D~]~%" (mod i 3) (mod i 5) i). But
I'd have to check, and it's not really squiggly enough.

I think you mean "~&~[Fizz~:;~]~[Buzz~:;~D~]~%" right?

Something like that was my first hunch, but it will print the integer
next to Fizz when (and (zerop (mod i 3)) (plusp (mod i 5))),

* (let ((i 6)) (format t "~&~[Fizz~:;~]~[Buzz~:;~D~]~%" (mod i 3) (mod i 5) i))
-| Fizz6
=> NIL
* (let ((i 9)) (format t "~&~[Fizz~:;~]~[Buzz~:;~D~]~%" (mod i 3) (mod i 5) i))
-| Fizz9
=> NIL

Here's one that avoids the explicit FizzBuzz, and adds /seven/
squiggles to my first stab:

(dotimes (i 100)
(format t "~[~[~3@*~A~A~:;~3@*~A~]~:;~[~4@*~A~:;~D~]~]~%"
(mod i 3) (mod i 5) i "Fizz" "Buzz"))

Better?

--
RmK
.