Conclusion of that exchange (sorry for being a little slow to understand everything the 3 of you wrote):
This: (prin1 name)
(princ " is ")
(princ (if (memq (aref status 0) '(?a ?e ?i ?o ?u)) "an " "a "))
(princ status)
(princ " package.\n\n")
Can reasonably be replaced by this: (let (sentence (format "The status of package %1$S is `%2$s'.\n\n" name status)))
(princ sentence))
Is that correct ? (I am using the numbered fields that Philipp Stephani implemented in June.)
Jean-Christophe
On Jul 2, 2017, at 22:47, Jean-Christophe Helary < address@hidden> wrote:
Instead of using message to replace that code:
(let ((name "JC"))
(prin1 "My name ")
(princ " is ")
(princ name)
(princ ".\n\n"))
It would be better to use something like:
(let ((sentence (format "My name is %s.\n\n)))
(prin1 sentence))
That way I keep the possibility to redirect the output somewhere else while making the sentence actually maintainable...
That's sounds pretty OK.I would just modify a bit your example, because currenty doesn't work,you get the error:read-from-minibuffer: End of file during parsing
Yes, I just realized that I had forgotten a lot of required stuff :) Sorry.
As for Noam's question, the mixing is, I guess, intended but was not properly reflected in my example:
(let ((name "JC"))
(princ "My name ")
(princ " is ")
(prin1 name)
(princ ".\n\n"))
Jean-Christophe
|