From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Macro question (bizarre)
Date: 2000/03/20
Message-ID: <3162507259147690@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 599767488
References: <38D22BF9.DFFE6E3E@emi.u-bordeaux.fr> <8atcu9$f6m$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <m3g0tpnf2e.fsf@world.std.com> <ey31z581lc8.fsf@cley.com> <m3k8j06s4r.fsf@world.std.com> <3162478065220549@naggum.no> <m3wvmy7l6u.fsf@world.std.com>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 953520178 15790 195.0.192.66 (20 Mar 2000 02:42:58 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Mar 2000 02:42:58 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Tom Breton <tob@world.std.com>
| I would not call that economical.  You're spending the more important
| resource, coding time/effort/attention, handling the multiple values.
| "Can I use them here, or have they degraded?"  "Why did my code stop
| working?  Could this prog1 be the problem?  It couldn't possibly be,
| the logic's exactly the same.  (pull hair out while poring over code)"

  I'm sensing fire, burned children, and fear.  being economical can either
  be conscious and achieved by thinking, as in the unskilled programmer who
  makes the best choices late, or automated and achived by emotion and gut
  feeling, as in the highly skilled who makes the best choices early.  you
  seem to think that writing efficient, economical code is something you do
  on a conscious basis after you have done something "clean" that is stupid
  and uneconomical according to the resource expenditure measures that you
  attemt to introduce later.  this is the incompetent's credo, and I for
  one do not subscribe to it.

#:Erik