I find
%% switch on debugging.
#(if (and #t (defined? 'set-debug-cell-accesses!))
(set-debug-cell-accesses! 5000))
(found in init.ly)
strange.
Wouldn't it be better ot simply remove the 'and' construct?
#t evaluates to #t always, isn't it?
Or is this one more Scheme subtlety I don't get?
Be
Hello Urs,
You’re right, "#t or X" is always #t, and "#t and X" is just X.
JM
> Le 6 mars 2015 à 08:25, Urs Liska a écrit :
>
> I find
>
> %% switch on debugging.
> #(if (and #t (defined? 'set-debug-cell-accesses!))
> (set-debug-cell-accesses! 5000))
>
> (found in init.ly)
>
> strange.
> W
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 08:25 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
> I find
>
> %% switch on debugging.
> #(if (and #t (defined? 'set-debug-cell-accesses!))
>(set-debug-cell-accesses! 5000))
>
> (found in init.ly)
>
> strange.
> Wouldn't it be better ot simply remove the 'and' construct?
> #t evaluates to
Am 06.03.2015 10:57, schrieb Richard Shann:
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 08:25 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
I find
%% switch on debugging.
#(if (and #t (defined? 'set-debug-cell-accesses!))
(set-debug-cell-accesses! 5000))
(found in init.ly)
strange.
Wouldn't it be better ot simply remove the 'and' c
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 11:18 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
> Am 06.03.2015 10:57, schrieb Richard Shann:
> > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 08:25 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
> >> I find
> >>
> >> %% switch on debugging.
> >> #(if (and #t (defined? 'set-debug-cell-accesses!))
> >> (set-debug-cell-accesses! 5000))
>
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 09:57 +, Richard Shann wrote:
> I then
> found it tricky to find where in the manual this concept (true/false)
> was explained, but came to understand it applies to the semantics of
> "if" and "while".
... and of "and", "or" perhaps others too that are not leaping t
Am 06.03.2015 11:34, schrieb Richard Shann:
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 11:18 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
Am 06.03.2015 10:57, schrieb Richard Shann:
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 08:25 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
I find
%% switch on debugging.
#(if (and #t (defined? 'set-debug-cell-accesses!))
(set-debug-cel
