Hello Thomas :-)
You are now subscribed
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
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
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)
(=
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
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
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
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)
>
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
> 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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
