Rainer Joswig wrote:Of course one can write it this way but I personally think that your
> > (defun next-sine-val (val x n)
> Actually I don't think it is generally necessary to
> (defun next-sine-val (val x n)
solution does not give hints on what's going on. But of course that
would work fine too. And maybe the function next-val is some lines above
where it is used than it's maybe not so clear what is going on.
So I think I prefer using local-variables, but of course YMMV.
Now, maybe but I trade normaly readability for time and space. I think
> Above would be enough for me, given that the
that may pay off sooner or later.
> Also a development environment (hopefully) has documentationThis is a good point and I've to admit documentation is completely
> and arglist info available either instantly or on keypress.
missing here. This should be improved. But for now it was just playing
around with figuring out common behaviar and with that simple next-val I
can buile chains of sum and the like. And I think for that reason
next-val is quite a good candidate for a function on it's own.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.