Re: cl-dolist, dolist, cl-return,

[Emanuel Berg]

John Mastro <john.b.mastro@gmail.com> writes:

> The `cl' prefix stands for Common Lisp, from whence
> the functionality there came (or was inspired by).

Of course, only confusion kicks in when it is
duplicated, but not fully so as the lack of "return"
and nil block with `dolist' shows.

>> Also: why isn't there a "neq"?
>
> I don't know the real answer, but it may be because
> then people would expect `n=', `neql', `nequal',
> `nequalp', `nstring=', and so on.

...and those would be nice! I'll add those as
I need them.

> Or perhaps some would have a "not variant" and
> others wouldn't, in which case we'd need to remember
> which did and didn't. IMHO it's simpler and cleaner
> to have a single `not' which can be used with any
> predicate as needed.

It is cleaner in one way but it also slower to type
and longer to read, and more error prone
with the additional pair of parenthesis, and more
likely to make the code overflow the right margin (I
have 85 chars/line!), so I think it is still better
with "neq" than (not (eq ... )).

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573