[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Elisp Tutorial dumb question -- but I thought I better doublecheck ?
From: |
Barry Margolin |
Subject: |
Re: Elisp Tutorial dumb question -- but I thought I better doublecheck ?? |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:59:02 -0400 |
User-agent: |
MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X) |
In article <mailman.2465.1177432345.7795.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
William Case <billlinux@rogers.com> wrote:
> Hi;
>
> I am working my way through the elisp tutorial
> at
> :http://www.linuxselfhelp.com/gnu/emacs-lisp-intro/html_mono/emacs-lisp-intro.
> html#Writing%20Defuns
>
> Section 3.3 on defuns gives an algorithm for the basic defun as:
>
> defun
> (defun function-name (arguments ... )
> "optional-documentation ..."
> (interactive argument-passing-info)
> body ... )
>
> and later gives an algorithm for the lambda anonymous function as:
> C.4.3 A lambda Expression: Useful Anonymity
>
> (lambda (arg-variables...)
> [documentation-string]
> [interactive-declaration]
> body-forms...)
>
> The differences seem trivial, but can I re-write the lambda algorithm in
> terms of the defun algorithm for myself such that:
>
> lambda
> (lambda (arguments ... )
> "optional-documentation ..."
> (interactive argument-passing-info)
> body ... )
>
> or would I be missing some significant difference ?
Are you asking whether [documentation-string] is the same as
"optional-documentation ..."? Yes, they are just different notations
for the same thing.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
- Re: Elisp Tutorial dumb question -- but I thought I better doublecheck ??,
Barry Margolin <=