When to use let or EQL in Lisp?
In LISP, there’s often a desire to use the weakest possible constructs. Some style guides will tell you to use = rather than eql when you know the compared items are numeric, for example. The idea is often to specify what you mean rather than program the computer efficiently.
Why is it important to use let in Common Lisp?
Using LET does not allow the init-forms to be executed in parallel nor does it allow the order of the init-forms to be changed. The reason is that Common Lisp allows functions to have side-effects. Therefore, the order of evaluation is important and is always left-to-right within a form.
Why are there no apostrophes in Lisp names?
For instance, function foo could be a calculation in one manner, and foo’ would do the same result but with a different approach. Perhaps it is unimaginative naming but it has roots in mathematics. Lisps generally (without any terminal reason) have discarded apostrophes in symbol names, and * kind of resembles an apostrophe.
What’s the Convention for using an asterisk at the end of a function name?
What’s the convention for using an asterisk at the end of a function name in Clojure and other Lisp dialects? Note that I’m not talking about ear muffs in symbol names, an issue that is discussed at Conventions, Style, and Usage for Clojure Constants? and How is the `*var-name*` naming-convention used in clojure?.
What is the scope of a let in CLHS?
For let*, a variable’s scopealso includes the remaining initial value forms for subsequent variable bindings. Examples:
Which is an example of a Fixnum in Common Lisp?
Example: Above declares the variable i to be a fixnum. Richard P. Gabriel published his book on Lisp benchmarks in 1985 and at that time these benchmarks were also used with non-CL Lisps. Common Lisp itself was brand new in 1985 – the CLtL1 book which described the language had just been published in 1984.