On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 11:29 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
> Am 14.01.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Mattes:
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2015 09:42 CET, Urs Liska <[email protected]>
> > schrieb:
> >
> >> Yes, I made some surprising progress with Scheme recently. I didn't even
> >> get stuck in the ands and parens in the actual predicate I wrote
> >>
> >> #(define (annotation? obj)
> >> (and
> >> (and (list? obj)
> >> (every pair? obj))
> >> (and (if (assoc-ref obj "type") #t #f)
> >> (if (assoc-ref obj "location") #t #f))))
> > Proper indentation helps ;-)
> > But why so contrived? Your code is equivalent to:
> >
> > #(define (annotation? obj)
> > (and
> > (list? obj)
> > (every pair? obj)
> > (if (assoc-ref obj "type") #t #f)
> > (if (assoc-ref obj "location") #t #f)))
... and is this just equivalent to:
#(define (annotation? obj)
(and
(list? obj)
(every pair? obj)
(assoc-ref obj "type")
(assoc-ref obj "location")))
???
Richard
> >
> > HTH Ralf Mattes
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thanks, this is of course better.
> sorting out nested conditionals has never been my strongest point ;-)
>
> Urs
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
