Re: #;
- From: rpw3@xxxxxxxx (Rob Warnock)
- Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:01:49 -0600
Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+---------------
| > I have seen many examples using #+nil for this
|
| That and #+IGNORE will break if someone adds IGNORE or NIL to
| *FEATURES*.
|
| What will not break is #+(or). This actually has the meaning of
| ignoring the following expression no matter what.
+---------------
I actually prefer Erik Naggum's suggestion of #-(and) for that,
since the minus implies "turn it off" to me more than #+(or)
[which just feels "backwards"]. That also lets you change only
one character to turn it back on with #+(and), and again the
plus implies "on" to me [rather than using #-(or) for "on"].
But for some time now I've been using an even simpler pair,
namely, #+- to turn a form "off" [mnemonic: "from on to off"
or a "falling edge"] and #-+ to turn a form "on" [mnemonic:
"from off to on" or a "rising edge"], e.g.:
> (list 1 2 #+- 3 4 #-+ 5 6)
(1 2 4 5 6)
>
This will work provided no-one ever puts :+ or :- onto *features*,
which is highly unlikely. (IMHO.)
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <rpw3@xxxxxxxx>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: #;
- From: Pascal Costanza
- Re: #;
- Prev by Date: Re: clsql hunchentoot problem working together
- Next by Date: Re: RFC: Extending method specializers
- Previous by thread: Re: #;
- Next by thread: Re: #;
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
