2 ms·
You can have the same step-by-step in Lisp via LET*. The problem outlined by the author happens when you have a function call where 1) the operator has a long n
by phoe-krk 2y ago
You can have the same step-by-step in Lisp via LET*. The problem outlined by the author happens when you have a function call where 1) the operator has a long name, 2) there are many arguments. The TREE-TRANSFORM-IF is such a case and you can't solve it by just "going step by step".
- behnamoh 2y agoYes, I think for whatever reason, Lisp languages tend to use long names for funcs and vars whereas Haskell and other FP languages prefer symbols like >>=, <$>, etc. Personally, I prefer somewhere in the middle. > The TREE-TRANSFORM-IF is such a case and you can't solve it by just "going step by step". Yes, this is a good point.
- skydhash 2y agoWhy not just locally bind it to something shorter with let? Lisp is flexible enough that this is a non issue.
- phoe-krk 2y agoYou introduce four new variables. You get five lines instead of four, and four of these lines are pure cognitive overhead.