Re: Emacs Lisp coding style question

[Barry Margolin]

In article <mailman.4715.1404309100.1147.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> >>> 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))
>      ...)
> 
> >>> 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.
> 
> >> 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.

Root of all evil. Unless this code is in a heavily used inner loop, it 
probably won't make any significant difference.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***