[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lexical binding
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
Re: Lexical binding |
Date: |
Sun, 3 Apr 2011 14:26:33 +0200 |
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 14:05, Christian Ohler <address@hidden> wrote:
> In loop destructuring, you can use nil for fields that you want to ignore:
>
> (loop for (nil width . nil) in bs-attributes-list
> if (numberp width) sum width)
Yes, but it is less informative.
> If you want to keep the ignored fields named, you could do something like
>
> (loop for (name width . rest) in bs-attributes-list
> do (progn name rest) ; ignore
> if (numberp width) sum width)
And this is just ugly.
Anyway, the point is that (elisp)11.9.5.1 "Converting a package to use
lexical scoping" says:
To silence byte-compiler warnings about unused variables, just use a
variable name that start with an underscore, which the byte-compiler
interpret as an indication that this is a variable known not to be used.
but this exception is quite less useful if assignments produce the
"variable `_x' not left unused" warning.
Thanks,
Juanma
- Re: Lexical binding, (continued)
- Re: Lexical binding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/04/02
- Re: Lexical binding, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/04/04
- Re: Lexical binding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/04/04
- Re: Lexical binding, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/04/04
- Re: Lexical binding, David Kastrup, 2011/04/04
- Re: Lexical binding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/04/04
Re: Lexical binding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/04/02
- Re: Lexical binding, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/04/02
- Re: Lexical binding, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/04/02
- Re: Lexical binding, Christian Ohler, 2011/04/03
- Re: Lexical binding,
Juanma Barranquero <=
- Re: Lexical binding, Christian Ohler, 2011/04/03
- Re: Lexical binding, Juanma Barranquero, 2011/04/03
- Re: Lexical binding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/04/04