[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggestions? Better filetype sniffing -- XHTML vs. HTML
From: |
Thien-Thi Nguyen |
Subject: |
Re: Suggestions? Better filetype sniffing -- XHTML vs. HTML |
Date: |
Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:59:54 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
don provan <dprovan@comcast.net> writes:
> It's hard to remember back that far, but I think I probably found that
> comparison helpful way back when. I'm not sure why you think it's such
> a stretch. Sure, there are significant differences, but none-the-less,
>
> (setq f 'function)
> (funcall f)
>
> is how you accomplish in emacs the same feat as in C with
>
> f = function; /* implicitely takes the address of function */
> (*f)();
>
> I suppose not all C programmers are familiar with function pointers,
> yet you really aren't an emacs programmer until you're familiar with
> quoted function names, so it might be considered a stretch in the
> sense that some C programmers wouldn't have the concept to begin with.
> Is that what you meant?
adopting analogies is a great way to learn, but i have been burned by
adopting ones that i mistakenly took to be more insightful (general)
than they actually were. in this case, i might have as a newbie
(conjecture because i have forgotten the precise steps of my learning
process, unfortunately), taken the above to also imply that:
(setq f '(+ 1 2 3))
(funcall f)
would also be "valid", which it is not. it certainly is valid when the
quoted object is a function, i'm not arguing against that. i'm just
pointing out how easily i confuse myself w/ a little imprecision.
thi
- Re: Suggestions? Better filetype sniffing -- XHTML vs. HTML,
Thien-Thi Nguyen <=