[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Return
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Return |
Date: |
Mon, 06 Dec 2010 14:11:47 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
> If you take a look at Elisp programs, you'll notice that in practice it
> is primarily used as an imperative language, not a functional language
> (that is: the focus is on executing actions, not on constructing
> values). It doesn't really help that the fundamental data structure,
> the list, is not an abstract data type but realised via a rather
> low-level pointer to a statically allocated pair of user-accessible
> values, cutting right through the idea of "functional programming" where
> the output is a mathematic function/transformation of the input.
Actually, I think that the cons cells are relatively harmless in this
regard (setcar/setcdr are not used that often, tho maybe slightly more
so via delq and friends) compared to the blow incurred by the
inefficiency of Elisp recursion.
Stefan
- Re: Common vs Emacs Lisp (was: Re: return), (continued)
- Re: return, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/12/04
Re: Return, MON KEY, 2010/12/05
Re: Return, Miles Bader, 2010/12/06
Re: Return, David Kastrup, 2010/12/07
Re: Return, Stefan Monnier, 2010/12/07
Re: Return, David Kastrup, 2010/12/07
Re: Return, Fren Zeee, 2010/12/08
Re: Return, Stefan Monnier, 2010/12/09
Re: Return, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/12/09