[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA, gls%AQUINAS@THINK.ARPA
- Subject: Backquote idioms
- From: Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 85 12:04 EDT
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: <850522115407.9.NFEP@NEPONSET.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 May 85 11:54 EDT
From: David C. Plummer in disguise <DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 1985, 10:56-EDT
From: Guy Steele <gls%AQUINAS@THINK.ARPA>
```(,@',,@q) ;Alan's example
(QUOTE (3 5) (4 6))
<error> ;but would be sensible if Q were the singleton list (R),
; in which case third evaluation would produce (3 5).
Do you all believe these?
Does it matter? RWK said he has never used a triple backquote. Neither
have I. There may be applications which are really good hacks, but can
they be maintained? Even some double nested backquotes require enough
though that they should probably be avoided. Conciseness and
compactness does not imply clarity and robustness.
From LMFS:DEFSTORAGE (part of PL/I record simulating substrate of File System):
(defmacro once-onlify-index-offset (form)
(let ((do-it-p (gensym))
`(let ((,do-it-p (not (atom *defstorage-index-offset*)))
(let-if ,do-it-p ;Guaranteed needs wrapping now.
(wrap-if (symbolp ,was-ixo) ;Needs once-onlying at macro time.
`(once-only (,,was-ixo) ,:the-form)
``(let ((,',',ggs ,,,was-ixo)) ,,:the-form)
Admittedly, now that there are "language tools", this can be done better.
Also, idioms like
and the like should be discussed. I have always been amused by
the analogy to tensor subscripts and superscripts and their