Re: constant `e'

[Daniel Brockman]

Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:

>> Incidentally, I also think `(not (null n))' looks better than `n' ---
>> as do, I believe, most Emacs Lisp programmers.
>
> I disagree with you on both counts.  When I see `(not (null n))', it
> takes extra effort mentally to filter out what, to me, is just noise.

Hm!  That's interesting.

The concept of `non-nil' is very basic to me, so I do not
have to filter anything out of `(not (null ...))', because
it is already phrased the way I think about it.

>> Take a look at this code:
>
>>   (cond (n
>>          (bongo-mark-line-forward (prefix-numeric-value n)))
>>         ((bongo-region-active-p)
>>          (bongo-mark-region (region-beginning) (region-end)))
>>         (t
>>          (bongo-mark-line-forward)))
>
>> It's ugly, isn't it?  It's not just that `(not (null n))' is
>> semantically clearer than a lone `n'; it's also more beautiful.
>
> It's more alliterative, perhaps.  But it feels like I'm being talked
> down to - the programmer is saying, in effect "you probably don't
> understand Lisp very well, so I'll make it very very clear".

I had no idea some people read it like that.

Do you feel similarily talked down to when you see C code
like the following?

   for (node = list->first; node != NULL; node = node->next)
     process (node);

-- 
Daniel Brockman <address@hidden>