First CLISP functions of a babby

Hey /prague/,
what do you think of my first functions? Do you think i am corrupted by the procedural paradigm already?


(defun factorial (a)
    "Calcula el factorial de a"
    (if (< a 1)
        1
        (* a (factorial (- a 1)))))

(defun get-n-elements (a n)
    "Crea una lista con los n primeros elementos de a,
    si a tiene menos de n elementos, rellena los elementos
    restantes con NIL"
    (cond
        ((<= n 0) nil)
        (T (append (list (car a)) (get-n-elements (rest a) (- n 1))))))
       

(defun get-n-to-m-elements (a n m)
    "Crea una lista con los elementos entre n y m de a"
    (cond
        ((not a) nil)
        ((> n m) (get-n-to-m-elements a m n))
        (T (reverse (get-n-elements (reverse (get-n-elements a m)) (+ (- m n) 1))))))

>>21

While I appreciate your insightful analysis, you should note that the small amount of time I spent composing my message was used on making my remark within the format provided by the post I was mocking. I suppose you could say I was limited by the medium I was working with, and while I'm sure there was some potential for optimization, I really couldn't be bothered to change my phrasing to pack a maximum amount of "snark" into my post.

>>23

By imitating the post I was mocking, I created meaning just as valuable as anything offered by the words themselves (it shows total disrespect for the person being quoted, and some contempt for the person quoting him). It's sort of like the explanation people give for poetry - by itself, it would just seem like a very pretentious paragraph, but if you add a certain structure it not only becomes art, but allows for extra meaning to bleed through.

In this light, I think it is clear that my posting style was more than appropriate, since my intention was precisely to make my thesis (namely, that Erik Naggum was a self-important blowhard who is mostly quoted by uninformed people looking to idolize someone they deem as competent) well understood on multiple fronts; the mockery of Erik's quote only enhanced my message.

Now, I do wish I could have conveyed how hilariously awful it is that people have flocked to mindlessly to Naggum and held him up as some sort of idol, since he ranted about this exact behavior multiple times. However, attempting to make the message too dense would have destroyed the structure and made it seem sloppy. Thus, I have no regrets, and I am entirely content with the way things came out.

Perhaps if we keep this up long enough, we will fully embrace the spirit of Naggum and tie this whole discussion to a theory about Western politics or Epistemology!

>>24

I'm sure Erik would be very proud of your eloquent retort if he were alive today!

>>27

I'm also apparently not worthy of a response that uses something resembling proper grammar.

>>29

Being an idiot and pretending it was on purpose after the fact does not make you clever. Please try harder next time.

):

>>31

This is really pathetic. I was hoping you'd find some way to be clever, but all you've done is follow the boring "I was just trolling all along, LOL" line of thought.

Bah, I expected too much.