From: "Štěpán Němec" <email@example.com>
To: Thorsten <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Elisp programming style
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:17:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Thorsten's message of "Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:03:22 +0200")
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:03:22 +0200
> Hi List,
> doing some Elisp programming (in an orgmode context) recently, the
> following question with regards to the 'accepted programming style' for
> Elisp concerned me:
> How independent and self-sustained should helper functions be?
> I found some redundancy in elisp code, e.g. several (main and helper)
> functions that do exactly the same thing to extract the same specific
> args out of an argument list. My first reaction was, to factor out this
> extraction into the main function, and then call the helper functions
> from inside a (let ...) environment where the extracted args are stored
> in a local variable.
> But then I recognised, that the helper functions cannot be called
> independently anymore, but only make sense when called from this one
> main function with its local bindings.
> Is there a kind of convention in a case like this? Like: "Make every function,
> even a helper function, independent, and don't care about redundancy"?
> Just being curious
Too bad you didn't give any concrete examples.
In general, if the helper function is only used in a single place and
isn't likely to be more generally useful, there might be no reason for
it to be a standalone function at all (other than modular programming,
which is always a good idea IMO).
OTOH, if the helper function _is_ standalone and used in multiple
places, then there is no "redundancy", so I'm really not sure what you
If I understand you correctly, you find multiple pairs of main and
helper functions, where the helper does very similar things. In that
case the right thing would seem to be to abstract all the helpers into a
single helper and use that in all the main functions.
[To clarify, this all is just an opinion of an interested Emacs and Org
user who often pulls his hair when trying to make use of/fix bugs in
existing code and bumping into lacks in modular design. The maintainers
will perhaps provide more authoritative guidelines.]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-28 10:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-27 18:03 Elisp programming style Thorsten
2011-10-28 10:17 ` Štěpán Němec [this message]
2011-10-28 14:09 ` Thorsten
2011-10-28 14:31 ` Nick Dokos
2011-10-28 15:59 ` Thorsten
2011-10-29 2:13 ` Eric Abrahamsen
2011-10-28 14:34 ` Tassilo Horn
2011-10-28 14:40 ` Eric Schulte
2011-10-28 16:04 ` Thorsten
2011-10-28 14:35 ` Eric Schulte
2011-10-28 15:52 ` Thorsten
2011-10-28 17:43 ` Tom Prince
2011-10-28 18:05 ` Thorsten
2011-10-29 7:43 ` Tassilo Horn
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).