This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: why undefined return values?
- To: PILCH Hartmut <phm at a2e dot de>
- Subject: Re: why undefined return values?
- From: Tom Burdick <tfb at u dot washington dot edu>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 15:39:29 -0800 (PST)
- cc: guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
> This doesn't work for the intended purpose, because find-match should not
> be evaluated at all, if an eof is encountered.
Yow, I should have read that more carefully. You're right, the lisp code
using setq is more elegant than the scheme code with nested let's. If you
think in those idioms, why not just keep a couple of macros &/or utility
functions around to make scheme look a little more lisp-like? The ability
to do that is what's so great about the various lisps [ie, one can adapt
them to look how one thinks, rather than having to adjust one's thoughts
to the language].
---
GPG public key: <http://students.washington.edu/tfb/pubkey.asc>