Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register


Groups > gnu.emacs.help > #60995

Re: TCO with named-let via macros

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>

Show all headers | View raw


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 | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar


Thread

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