[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs Lisp coding style question
From: |
Thorsten Jolitz |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs Lisp coding style question |
Date: |
Wed, 02 Jul 2014 16:04:25 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>>> But (without being able to give concrete examples right now) I noticed
>>>> that advanced Lispers tend to call this 'C-style', consider the let
>
> I've never seen it referred to as "C-style". To me "C-style" would be
>
> (let (a b c d e)
> (setq a (foo-a))
> (setq b (foo-b))
> ...)
I cannot give a concrete url but I vaguely remember having seen such a
reference.
>>>> What would be the recommended style for Emacs Lisp, or is this just a
>>>> matter of taste?
>
> Mostly taste, and it depends on the specifics. I.e. it depends on
> whether the intermediate names can be useful as code documentation, and
> indentation issues may also tip the balance between the two.
Better indentation is probably one of the main reasons I find the (let
...) style easier to read in many cases.
>>> Notice that both code might compile to the exact same binary, so there's
>>> no efficiency advantage in either.
>
> The Emacs Lisp implementation (both interpreted and compiled) is not
> sophisticated enough to get the same efficiency out of the let-binding
> version, actually.
>
>> But in terms of uncompiled user-code - would the impact of the let
>> bindings here be worth thinking about performance?
>
> No the difference should not be noticeable anyway.
Ok, thanks, so there is no need to worry about this style-question, just
use what seems to be the better option for the problem at hand.
--
cheers,
Thorsten