IDK <ulvinge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> Actually, with paredit, these keys are almost never used.
>
> Do most lispers use paredit (do you)?
I'd say most emacs user lisp coders do use paredit, it's such an
improvement.
> Are they forced to, because without it,
> it would be impossible to edit lisp code?
No, before paredit we just used the standard emacs features for lisp
editing. Paredit is just even better. I know it's incredible, but
it's possible to go beyond the goodness of emacs! That's the
meta-goodness of emacs.
>> No, only emacs to do everything. But it has different modes for the
>> different kind of editing. An editing mode changes as little as a few
>> key binding and font-locking (syntactic colorization), and as much as
>> implement a full application such as spreadsheets, email and news
>> clients, web browsers, file managements, and of course, tools for
>> programming and debugging in various languages.
>
> Yeah, but don't you have to learn those new
> key bindings every time you use a new mode?
There's some standardization. Often the same key binding has the same
behavior, or semantically the same behavior, from one mode to the other.
> I use only one mode, in which I can edit all
> my code. This does have cons and pros, but
> for now, I'm happy with it.
That's equivalent to use the fundamental-mode in emacs to edit
everything. This sounds like an ludicruous idea to any emacs user.
Sounds like you're using a screwdriver to hit nails, to saw planks of
wood, to spread plaster, and occasionnaly to drive screws.
> Now back to my original question about iexp:
> Is it acceptable if I post iexp code?
Depends on your purpose when posting code. iexpr makes it harder for
scheme programmers to read your code, much harder to try it out.
Things that are not accepted by a reader are kill-filed.
> You did almost answer it unintentionally before:
> When I posted my split function, you could
> successfully parse it and rewrite it, even
> though you thought it was prefix notation.
Believe me, I perfectly understood what it was. I just abhor it so
much that I wouldn't touch it with a ten-feet pool, and I'll just
pretend it's anything else.
> To me that says that it's easier to read
> for novices than ***p, but I may be wrong...
I'm not a novice, I hope.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
|
