[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: extracting serial repeats
From: |
Anselm Helbig |
Subject: |
Re: extracting serial repeats |
Date: |
Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:00:43 +0100 |
Hello Andreas!
At Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:01:40 +0100,
Andreas Roehler wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> let's consider the following pseudo-code, assumed inefficient, because
> Functions 1..n are identic.
>
> Function-1
> (Body-of-Function-1)
> Follow-action-1 with Function-1
> Follow-action-2 with Function-1
>
> Function-2
> (Body-of-Function-2)
> Follow-action-1 with Function-2
> Follow-action-2 with Function-2
> ...
> Function-n
> (Body-of-Function-n)
> Follow-action-1 with Function-n
> Follow-action-2 with Function-n
>
> More efficient seems, having
>
> Body-of-Functions
>
> extracted into a subroutine
>
> so we could write something like
>
> (dolist (element (1..n))
> SUBROUTINE element
> Follow-action-1 with element
> Follow-action-2 with element
>
> Question is: exists a known tool for the extraction resp. refactoring needed?
Sounds like a case for a macro:
(defun foo-function (i)
`(defun ,(intern (format "foo-function-%d" i)) (arg1 arg2)
(message "this is the body of the function")))
(defmacro define-foo-functions (n)
`(progn
,@(loop for i from 1 to n
collect (foo-function i))))
The question is, however, why do you need functions with a number in
their name, shouldn't this be an argument to the function?
HTH,
Anselm
--
Anselm Helbig
mailto:anselm.helbig+news2009@googlemail.com