[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: |
Mon, 4 Apr 2011 02:12:56 +0200 |
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 01:32, Christian Ohler <address@hidden> wrote:
> How about:
>
> (loop for (name width . rest) in bs-attributes-list
> do (ignore name rest)
> if (numberp width) sum width)
All these are just workarounds, none of them pretty. I think I'll go
with using nil in the destructuring.
> IIRC, Common Lisp distinguishes between (declare (ignore ...)) and (declare
> (ignorable ...)). The latter is useful for macros that introduce bindings
> that may or may not be used.
Yes, "3.8 The Evaluation and Compilation Dictionary", "Declaration
IGNORE, IGNORABLE" in the Common Lisp Hyperspec.
> If this is the
> case, then I agree it's not quite expressive enough, and requires idioms
> like the above (with many macros, not just `loop').
Agreed.
Juanma
- Re: Lexical binding, (continued)
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, 2011/04/03
- Re: Lexical binding, Christian Ohler, 2011/04/03
- Re: Lexical binding,
Juanma Barranquero <=
- Re: Lexical binding, Stefan Monnier, 2011/04/04