[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [nongnu] elpa/geiser bb9d5cb200: geiser-impl--normalize-method: quic
Re: [nongnu] elpa/geiser bb9d5cb200: geiser-impl--normalize-method: quick fix for previous change
Fri, 28 Jan 2022 16:16:54 -0500
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux)
> yes, that works, but i find it ugly to use eval explictly for the sake
> of not using "a list-that-looks-like-a-function":
To me, it's being more honest: we have a variable that holds an ELisp
expression, so we need `eval` somwehere.
> what are the downsides of the latter? i understand that i'd be just
> hiding an implicit eval, but is that all, or am i missing
> other drawbacks?
There's no serious drawback, no. Here are some minor drawbacks:
- In Common-Lisp and Scheme '(lambda () 5) does not evaluate to
something recognized as a function. Currently ELisp does, but I think
it's something better avoided. I hope in some distant future we can
make the types `function` and `cons` be a mutually-exclusive.
- the function value `(lambda () ,v) returns a function that will
evaluate v using the old dynamically-scoped dialect which we're trying
to phase out.
> (isn't, loosely speaking, hiding evals one of things macros
> buy us?
`eval` is used sometimes in macros, but most macros neither use nor hide
`eval`, AFAIK, no.
> ... the version without eval looks more readable to me).
My own taste is reflects in the fact that my local Emacs rejects
(lambda ...) as a valid function value ;-)