camelCase and Source Code Formatting in Emacs Lisp
This page discuss the use of camelCase in emacs lisp source code, and some code formatting issues.
here's a sample emacs lisp code using camelCase:
(defun delete-current-file () "Delete the file associated with the current buffer." (interactive) (let (currentFile) (setq currentFile (buffer-file-name)) (when (yes-or-no-p (concat "Delete file: " currentFile)) (kill-buffer (current-buffer)) (delete-file currentFile) (message (concat "Deleted file: " currentFile)) ) ) )
Thomas Munro wrote:
Why use CamelCase
I find that using camelCase is a good way to distinguish my own symbol names from built-in ones.
Especially because emacs's emacs-lisp-mode's syntax coloring is flawed in that it only color a small percentage of built-in keywords, rather against its own conventions in syntax coloring. For detail, see: Emacs Lisp Mode Syntax Coloring Problem.
Using “setq” vs Nested “let” Form
In emacs lisp code, there can be 2 ways to set a local variable. Here's one way:
(let (x y) (setq x 3) (setq y 4) (message "%d %d" x y) )
here's another way:
(let ((x 3) (y 4)) (message "%d %d" x y) )
Why use SETQ if you don't have to? How about this:(let ((current-file (buffer-file-name))) ;; … )
I find that this form:
(let ((‹var1› ‹val1›) (‹var2› ‹val2›) …) ‹body›)
is harder to read, especially when not all your vars are not constants or require a lot lisp code to define, for example:
(let (var1 (var2 (…)) var3 (var4 (…))…) (setq var1 …) … (setq var3 …) …)
where many of the values are themselves compound expressions with many nested parens.
I think it is a good recommendation that one should always use:
(let (var1 var2 var3 …) (setq var1 …) (setq var2 …) … body )
and only use the
(‹var› ‹val›) form if all the vars are just local constants.
For hanging parenthesis, see: Xah Emacs Tutorial Criticisms: Emacs Lisp, Coding Style, Language Idioms, Controversy.
Ask me question on patreon