Re: Why not a setf-able NIL ?
- From: kodifik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 23:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Matthias Buelow wrote:
The primary purpose of the DATA statement is to give names to constants;It is not bad wording and it is not funny. The value of PI can change.
instead of referring to PI as 3.141592653589797, at every appearance,
the variable PI can be given that value with a DATA statement, and
used instead of the longer form of the constant. This also simplifies
modifying the program, should the value of PI change."
Granted, it's only bad wording but still funny. :)
Just suppose you want to repeat calculations for a non-euclidean space.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why not a setf-able NIL ?
- From: josephoswald+gg@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Why not a setf-able NIL ?
- References:
- Why not a setf-able NIL ?
- From: kodifik
- Re: Why not a setf-able NIL ?
- From: Pascal Costanza
- Re: Why not a setf-able NIL ?
- From: kodifik
- Re: Why not a setf-able NIL ?
- From: Pascal J. Bourguignon
- Re: Why not a setf-able NIL ?
- From: Matthias Buelow
- Why not a setf-able NIL ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Why not a setf-able NIL ?
- Next by Date: Re: Why not a setf-able NIL ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why not a setf-able NIL ?
- Next by thread: Re: Why not a setf-able NIL ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|