[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: plist-put: destructive?
From: |
Philipp Stephani |
Subject: |
Re: plist-put: destructive? |
Date: |
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:08:18 +0000 |
Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> schrieb am So., 22. Jan. 2017 um
01:57 Uhr:
> Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
>
> >> Thanks to you both. I'm working with existing plists, so I'll drop
> >> the setqs, that's a relief.
> >
> > Why is it a relief - a relief from what? What if something reset your
> "existing plist" to nil behind your back?
>
> The code I'm working has many repeated clauses looking like:
>
> (when thing1
> (setq the-plist (plist-put the-plist :thing thing1)))
>
> A little more complicated than that, but there will be like seven of
> those in a row. Probably I should just write myself a custom
> bulk-conditional-plist-setter macro, probably using the gv setter, but
> for the time being just being able to remove all the "(setq the-plist"
> makes everything easier to read.
>
You could also write
(cl-callf plist-put the-plist :thing thing1)
- plist-put: destructive?, Eric Abrahamsen, 2017/01/20
- Re: plist-put: destructive?, tomas, 2017/01/21
- Re: plist-put: destructive?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/01/21
- Re: plist-put: destructive?, tomas, 2017/01/21
- Re: plist-put: destructive?, Eric Abrahamsen, 2017/01/21
- Re: plist-put: destructive?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/01/22
- Re: plist-put: destructive?, Eric Abrahamsen, 2017/01/22
- Re: plist-put: destructive?, tomas, 2017/01/23
- Re: plist-put: destructive?, Stefan Monnier, 2017/01/21
- Re: plist-put: destructive?, Eric Abrahamsen, 2017/01/22