After playing around with some test programs ...I think I've got most of
that now.
I've "proved" that a let statement's result is visible ANYWHERE within it's
bounding parens but not outside of them and
If we have
(do something to X)
(do something to Y)
(do something to X again)
I was hoping
Hello Tim Johnson :-)
You are now subscribed
Thanks
--
Tim
http://www.akwebsoft.com, http://www.tj49.com
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
BTW
> This *might* be what you need. I can't test it.
Yes...it works perfectly!
On 31 January 2017 at 19:15, dean wrote:
> > This *might* be what you need. I can't test it.
> That's fine.
> Your comments are EXTREMELY helpful because as you correctly note I am
> struggling with this.
> I still d
> This *might* be what you need. I can't test it.
That's fine.
Your comments are EXTREMELY helpful because as you correctly note I am
struggling with this.
I still don't understand some of things you mention so please bear with me
and I'll try narrow down the source of my misunderstanding.
Thank yo
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 07:14:57PM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
> The only place where it is good is the line (setq Ln (pack " " Ln)). For the
> rest all 'setq's can be simply omitted if you fix the conditional flow.
>
> Try it! :)
OK, could not resist ;)
This *might* be what you need. I can't
Hi Dean,
I see a lot of confusion about 'let' and perhaps also 'setq'.
I don't know how to better explain it as it is already done in the function
references. So I just put a few comments here; please try to understand how
exactly these functions work!
>(dm ln_completes> (Ln Ln_no)
>
Here's the original "setq" method
(dm ln_completes> (Ln Ln_no)
(if (gt0 (: first_ln_no))
(setq Ln (pack " " Ln)))
(if (<> (: new_buf) NIL)
(=: buf (: new_buf))
(=: buf (: hdngs)))
(if (member Ln (: buf))
(prog
I've inadvertently pressed some send key combo again...
simple use of let is fine e.g.
(let X 3
do what ever you want to do with X here without much change of hierachy
)
Ln doesn't fit this usage pattern and to "let" it be something at the top
seems somewhat artificial because there's an if st
Any help advising how I should restructure the parens in order to replace
setq with let would really help me to understand how to do it.
Thank you in anticipation and sorry if this is a really easy thing to do.
On 31 January 2017 at 16:32, dean wrote:
> I've inadvertently pressed some send key c
Oops acccidentally sent before I finished...Sorry!
I was going to say the examples I've seen tend to be
(let X 3
(dm ln_completes> (Ln Ln_no)
(let (Ln Ln Res 0)
(if (gt0 (: first_ln_no))
(let Ln (pack " " Ln)))
(if (<> (: new_buf) NIL)
(=
Each one of the "let"s in the following method WAS a setq. All I did was
wrap the existing body with parens and assign Ln and Res with "let" but it
doesn't work. The examples I've seen tend to be like this...
(let X 3
)
)
On 30 January 2017 at 16:19, dean wrote:
> Hi Alex
> Yes that worked
Hello Thomas :-)
You are now subscribed
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
12 matches
Mail list logo