[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?

To: Robert Feldt <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
From: Bruce Lewis <address@hidden>
Date: 16 Jun 2003 16:56:15 -0400
Cc: Michael Vanier <address@hidden>, address@hidden
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0306162119550.791-100000@duquesne.ce.chalmers.se>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0306162119550.791-100000@duquesne.ce.chalmers.se>
Sender: address@hidden
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1

Robert Feldt <feldt@ce.chalmers.se> writes:

> Are there any real-world examples on when the latter (lisp-way) of
> extending the syntax has also benefitted long-term maintainability (or
> examples where it has been harmful)?

The brl-when and brl-unless syntaxes were created to improve
maintainability of the MSL (Monitored Stock List) application at Eaton
Vance.  I'll post details if I get an email from anybody saying they
care to hear details.

-- 
<brlewis@[(if (brl-related? message)    ; Bruce R. Lewis
              "users.sourceforge.net"   ; http://brl.codesimply.net/
              "alum.mit.edu")]>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
  - From: Jay Sulzberger <jays@panix.com>

References:
- Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
  - From: Robert Feldt <feldt@ce.chalmers.se>

Prev by Date: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Next by Date: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Previous by thread: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Next by thread: Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread