Re: Style Issues in Lisp and Scheme programming, setq versus let ... and onion structure with multiple cores or eyes or kernels Re: string to list or string to array

[PJ Weisberg]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Swami Tota Ram Shankar
<tota_ram@india.com> wrote:

> For example, the imperative programming style, flows nicely from top
> to bottom. The eye has to move L->R and top to bottom to understand
> the screenful module, as in C.
>
> I have found that let, and functional style leads to an onion type
> structure.
>
> f(g(h(x,y),z,k(alpha,beta,l(theta)))w)

That could be valid C code, but it's probably not Lisp code, unless
you really do have a function named "x,y".

> If it is short, its not an issue, but the multiple cores or eyes of
> the onion, makes it impossible to grasp the structure.

Just one small tip: when reading lisp code, pay more attention to the
indentation then to the parentheses.  Of course the
compiler/interpreter doesn't pay attention to the indentation, but the
author probably did.

-PJ

Gehm's Corollary to Clark's Law: Any technology distinguishable from
magic is insufficiently advanced.