Re: macrology

From: "John Thingstad" <jpthing@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:23:07 +0100

På Fri, 04 Jan 2008 04:02:51 +0100, skrev Pascal Bourguignon <pjb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Sorry, I confused PROG and PROGV.

which establishes DYNAMIC bindings

Still, when there's no GO or no binding, it would be better to use LET
or PROGN rather than PROG (for the same reason we prefer to use WHEN
or UNLESS rather than IF).

see above

--------------
John Thingstad
.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: macrology
  - From: John Thingstad

References:
- macrology
  - From: Paul Tarvydas
- Re: macrology
  - From: Pascal Bourguignon
- Re: macrology
  - From: Pillsy
- Re: macrology
  - From: Pascal Bourguignon

Prev by Date: Re: CLOS persistence
Next by Date: Re: macrology
Previous by thread: Re: macrology
Next by thread: Re: macrology
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: Post-nuclear broadcasting
... We ant got that prog for some reason. ... Dunno why.Gaffer's ...
(uk.tech.broadcast)
Re: SF influences
... >>> fireplace is broken with a hammer for no good reason. ... That Rush isn't prog. ...
(rec.music.progressive)
Re: Reading lines from file macro
... > Is there a reason why you put that PROGN in the DO part of the LOOP? ... subforms of body were a symbol. ...
(comp.lang.lisp)
Re: CL Performance/Syntax of IF-THEN-ELSE
... >PROGN is essential when you want to return the multiple values of the ... syntax used with since both the declaration and ... I'm still a bit murky on what CL (PROG ...) returns and more ...
(comp.lang.lisp)
Re: macrology
... If you just want PROGN, ... PROG establishes lexical bindings. ... Note that like TAGBODY, PROG doesn't return the result of the last ...
(comp.lang.lisp)