[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggestions? Better filetype sniffing -- XHTML vs. HTML
From: |
don provan |
Subject: |
Re: Suggestions? Better filetype sniffing -- XHTML vs. HTML |
Date: |
Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:25:50 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt) |
Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@glug.org> writes:
> (setq f '(+ 1 2 3))
> (funcall f)
>
> would also be "valid", which it is not.
I've kinda forgotten what we're talking about now, but I think the
question was something about using concepts about function addressing
learned from C as a way of explaining quoted function names when
learning lisp. So you would only think the above is valid if you
thought
extern int func(int, int, int);
int (*f)(int, int, int);
f = func(1, 2, 3); /* or perhaps "&func(1, 2, 3)" */
(*f)();
was valid in C, which it is not. Quoting an expression is really quite
a bit different than quoting a function name, so I don't really see
any reason to worry about the two being confused.
Granted, what is completely unexpected to a C programer is that
(setq f '(+ 1 2 3))
(eval f)
is valid and does do just what it looks like it does.
-don