Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > gnu.emacs.help > #60995
| From | Richard Smith <null@void.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | gnu.emacs.help |
| Subject | Re: TCO with named-let via macros |
| Date | 2024-08-10 22:51 +0100 |
| Organization | BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com) |
| Message-ID | <m17ccoavx9.fsf@void.com> (permalink) |
| References | <m11q42e6zz.fsf@void.com> <8734oi5ksx.fsf@axel-reichert.de> <m1plrlwth0.fsf@void.com> <87a5hkjfa2.fsf@gmail.com> |
steve g <sgonedes1977@gmail.com> writes: > Richard Smith <null@void.com> writes: > >> >> It'll take 11 Tonnes load in gravity before bending. >> > > what guage steel you using at what incline? :) > >> The point - the path to the answer is part of the record, as well as the >> answer itself. >> >> And this is what makes the emacs environment so useful to me for what I >> do. >> >> I've preceded C-x C-e by C-u to put the answer into the buffer >> C-u C-x C-e >> Familiar day-to-day usage. >> >> Thanks for showing me the more advanced programming posibilities. I put the dimensions in the familiar way we express it "Rectangular Hollow Section beam 200x100x8mm, 3m long" So that's 200mm tall, 100mm wide and 8mm wall thickness. 3metres long, obviously You could check my values against beam tables - eg. in "The Blue Book" https://www.steelforlifebluebook.co.uk/hfrhs/ec3-ukna/section-properties-dimensions-properties "200x100x8" is a commercial section. I see what you are asking about "incline". The implicit assumption for a "simple beam" - it sits on an immovable support at each end, otherwise span free space and is loaded in the middle - is that the beam is horizontal and the load is vertical, as would be the case for a mass in gravity bearing upon the beam
Back to gnu.emacs.help | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar
thanks - calculate pi fn. in elisp Richard Smith <null@void.com> - 2024-07-09 19:48 +0100
TCO with named-let via macros (was: thanks - calculate pi fn. in elisp) Axel Reichert <mail@axel-reichert.de> - 2024-07-09 23:15 +0200
Re: TCO with named-let via macros Richard Smith <null@void.com> - 2024-07-10 06:28 +0100
Re: TCO with named-let via macros steve g <sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2024-08-10 15:56 -0400
Re: TCO with named-let via macros Richard Smith <null@void.com> - 2024-08-10 22:28 +0100
Re: TCO with named-let via macros Richard Smith <null@void.com> - 2024-07-10 06:36 +0100
Re: TCO with named-let via macros steve g <sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2024-08-10 16:22 -0400
Re: TCO with named-let via macros Axel Reichert <mail@axel-reichert.de> - 2024-08-10 23:15 +0200
Re: TCO with named-let via macros steve g <sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2024-08-11 14:56 -0400
Re: TCO with named-let via macros Richard Smith <null@void.com> - 2025-04-08 10:26 +0100
Re: TCO with named-let via macros Richard Smith <null@void.com> - 2024-07-10 06:59 +0100
Re: TCO with named-let via macros Richard Smith <null@void.com> - 2024-07-10 09:18 +0100
Re: TCO with named-let via macros steve g <sgonedes1977@gmail.com> - 2024-08-10 16:26 -0400
Re: TCO with named-let via macros Richard Smith <null@void.com> - 2024-08-10 22:51 +0100
csiph-web