Re: Emacs Lisp coding style question

[Thorsten Jolitz]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>>> But (without being able to give concrete examples right now) I noticed
>>>> that advanced Lispers tend to call this 'C-style', consider the let
>
> I've never seen it referred to as "C-style".  To me "C-style" would be
>
>    (let (a b c d e)
>      (setq a (foo-a))
>      (setq b (foo-b))
>      ...)

I cannot give a concrete url but I vaguely remember having seen such a
reference. 

>>>> What would be the recommended style for Emacs Lisp, or is this just a
>>>> matter of taste?
>
> Mostly taste, and it depends on the specifics.  I.e. it depends on
> whether the intermediate names can be useful as code documentation, and
> indentation issues may also tip the balance between the two.

Better indentation is probably one of the main reasons I find the (let
...) style easier to read in many cases.

>>> Notice that both code might compile to the exact same binary, so there's
>>> no efficiency advantage in either.
>
> The Emacs Lisp implementation (both interpreted and compiled) is not
> sophisticated enough to get the same efficiency out of the let-binding
> version, actually.
>
>> But in terms of uncompiled user-code - would the impact of the let
>> bindings here be worth thinking about performance?
>
> No the difference should not be noticeable anyway.

Ok, thanks, so there is no need to worry about this style-question, just
use what seems to be the better option for the problem at hand. 

-- 
cheers,
Thorsten