Re: #;
- From: Kent M Pitman <pitman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Dec 2007 22:46:43 -0500
verec <verec@xxxxxxx> writes:
I have seen many examples using #+nil for this
purpose, but this precisely doesn't work for
incomplete expressions whereas:
Btw, NIL was the New Implementation of Lisp (a lisp implementation for
the VAX some years ago), and #+NIL actually did have an implementation
it was defined in. I don't recommend it for conditionals. #+(or) is
safer, though not terribly intelligible to everyone. #+ignore is something
I've seen enough people use that it's unlikely anyone would make :ignore
feature and expect it to work.
(defun foo (n)
(cond
#; treat this special case later
This previous line makes no sense since it is not code. Perhaps
you meant
#; ; treat this special case later.
#; ((= n 1)
#; (foo-1 n))
I'm not sure I totally see the point of this. I can see it makes the
lines easier to see visually on the left margin, but it's very hard to
mechanically check because if I write
#; (foo)
#; (bar)
the question arises: Is this a single commented-out form, in which case
it's ill-formed. Or is it two in a row? You still can't see the end of
it because the thing that appears as the "end" (the second line) is actually
the start/end of the next one.
Personally, I think prefer to just use this: #|| ... ||#
The use the innermost vertical bar pairs ------^.....^
does nothing for Lisp, and #|...|# would theoretically work the same.
But most Emacs editors see the #|| and the ||# as if you'd written
two independent no-character symbols using the || notation, and so they
syntax the part between the double-pairs as if they were not inside vertical
bars, so they will indent the code better in the "..." range. That makes code
coloring work better and makes code-hopping commands work better.
.
- Prev by Date: wholesale brand name sunglasses.
- Next by Date: Re: #;
- Previous by thread: Re: #;
- Next by thread: Re: #;
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
