don provan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ Help-gnu-emacs mailing list Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnu-emacs
