[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Defining functions within functions?
From: |
tomas |
Subject: |
Re: Defining functions within functions? |
Date: |
Wed, 25 May 2016 11:07:38 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 04:36:16AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> These kinds of callback codes are often described as "CPS-style code",
> and in some cases a couple of macros can go a long way to hiding this
> machinery and give the illusion of "plain old sequential code", reducing
> the nesting madness.
Nevertheless: debugging is still torture, right?
regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAldFa1oACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYszACfeH3tgY1yvvauZf2E2NqAA+7w
qosAnAmNTNsj9kyc4aEmeyZ8rqC5bjOr
=RGpp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Re: Defining functions within functions?, (continued)
- Re: Defining functions within functions?, Michael Heerdegen, 2016/05/23
- Re: Defining functions within functions?, Marcin Borkowski, 2016/05/24
- Re: Defining functions within functions?, Marcin Borkowski, 2016/05/25
- Re: Defining functions within functions?, Stefan Monnier, 2016/05/25
- Re: Defining functions within functions?, Nicolas Petton, 2016/05/25
- Re: Defining functions within functions?, Marcin Borkowski, 2016/05/25
- Re: Defining functions within functions?,
tomas <=
- Re: Defining functions within functions?, Marcin Borkowski, 2016/05/25
- RE: Defining functions within functions?, Drew Adams, 2016/05/25
- Re: Defining functions within functions?, Marcin Borkowski, 2016/05/25