* 2010-02-18 07:13 (-0800), Tom Link wrote: > Well, if you included the definition of reduce in your code, your > example wouldn't be that clean either. It is really pointless to show > off library functions that hide the messy details.
Hmm, first I'd like to emphasize that I was not trying to say that REDUCE makes Common Lisp clearer than anybody else. I actually said that it is more difficult. I only suggested comparison between the loop examples -- and that's because of similar implementation. I brought REDUCE only as an example of real-world usage. About the quoted text above, I think I see your point but I don't understand what makes REDUCE [1] a library function. Where does the core/primitive part end and libraries begin? At least in CLISP implementation REDUCE is defined in C source code so in that sense I do agree that it hides messy details. On the other hand OR and AND are not primitive code. They are macros which expand to IF forms. So in different way OR and AND hide messy details too. I'm sure you are more experienced and it's me who doesn't understand this well enough so please help me understand the distinction. --------------- 1. http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_reduce.htm -- You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
