[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Anaphoric macros: increase visibility
From: |
Dmitri Paduchikh |
Subject: |
Re: Anaphoric macros: increase visibility |
Date: |
Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:15:47 +0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
Tino Calancha <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2017, Dmitri Paduchikh wrote:
>>Comparing if-it, when-it with if-let, when-let, it seems
>>clear that they represent different tradeoffs of simplicity vs. flexibility.
> Do we need to choose? We could have defined both kinds of anaphoric
> macros.
I am not disagree with that. Just wanted to note that existing names of
anaphoric macros are not best ones.
[...]
> Although I prefer your names, i.e., if-it than aif, it might be argued that
> there are historical reasons in favour of the latter.
Well, aif, awhen are at least more discoverable through C-h f aif for those
who used to these names. They can be aliases.
With best regards
Dmitri Paduchikh
- Re: Anaphoric macros: increase visibility, (continued)
- Re: Anaphoric macros: increase visibility, Tino Calancha, 2017/01/14
- Re: Anaphoric macros: increase visibility, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/01/14
- On the naming/behavior of {if, when}-let (was Re: Anaphoric macros: increase visibility), Mark Oteiza, 2017/01/14
- Re: Anaphoric macros: increase visibility, Michael Heerdegen, 2017/01/14
- Re: Anaphoric macros: increase visibility, Tino Calancha, 2017/01/15
- Re: Anaphoric macros: increase visibility, Stefan Monnier, 2017/01/15
- Re: Anaphoric macros: increase visibility, Tino Calancha, 2017/01/15
- Re: Anaphoric macros: increase visibility, Stefan Monnier, 2017/01/15
Re: Anaphoric macros: increase visibility, Dmitri Paduchikh, 2017/01/14