Re: constant `e'

[David Kastrup]

Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi, Daniel
>
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 12:35:30PM +0100, Daniel Brockman wrote:
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> Incidentally, I also think `(not (null n))' looks better than `n' ---
>> as do, I believe, most Emacs Lisp programmers.
>
> I disagree with you on both counts.  When I see `(not (null n))', it
> takes extra effort mentally to filter out what, to me, is just
> noise.

Agreed.

>> Take a look at this code:
>
>>   (cond (n
>>          (bongo-mark-line-forward (prefix-numeric-value n)))
>>         ((bongo-region-active-p)
>>          (bongo-mark-region (region-beginning) (region-end)))
>>         (t
>>          (bongo-mark-line-forward)))
>
>> It's ugly, isn't it?  It's not just that `(not (null n))' is
>> semantically clearer than a lone `n'; it's also more beautiful.

Uh what?  You want meaningless clutter for lining things up?  Then
write

   (cond (n ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
          (bongo-mark-line-forward (prefix-numeric-value n)))
         ((bongo-region-active-p)
          (bongo-mark-region (region-beginning) (region-end)))
         (t ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
          (bongo-mark-line-forward)))


> It's more alliterative, perhaps.  But it feels like I'm being talked
> down to - the programmer is saying, in effect "you probably don't
> understand Lisp very well, so I'll make it very very clear".

Disagree.  That is not at all clearer.  It is merely occupying a
different amount of space.

Rather than "I'll make it very very clear", it is "I'll try to give
you a nice wallpaper that won't startle you out of your sleep".

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum