Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!sewer!alphared!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Smith Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Subject: Re: TCO with named-let via macros Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 06:59:02 +0100 Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com) Message-ID: References: <8734oi5ksx.fsf@axel-reichert.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com; logging-data="15391"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:lyF6MFhXHqfI7J9QI3kkwmCPdrw= sha1:Ssf2pPIo+qCltoKky6gLwwbI5yc= sha256:oos0+FgR8omAjbMnrfirvASfEN1ESS1+eZuQRH4Xpqw= sha1:TDnbN7XdIh33kVE54gEi+zdTobs= sha256:sGQGi8Dw7DvWPYUbyYMzXJfoNElHPcjMq9mz8nilL9E= Xref: csiph.com gnu.emacs.help:60985 Axel, all - for what it's worth... It's often much quicker to get a solution than to explain that solution. It can take minutes or something like an hour and a half to know something vitally important. The feeling is it's very rewarding. But how you explain that to the rest of the world living in a world structured around word-processors, spreadsheets, etc... That is the hard-work. With structures you can test-load while it is centimetres above the ground - well-known acceptable method. IF you'd got it wrong and the structure failed that would have no consequence as it would simply sag those centimetres to the ground. That test done at some margin-of-safety overload, you can use it at any height, etc. So you can happily sketch your solutions - and you know there is a long-stop which will catch any errors. The efficiency is knowing exactly what that test-load is which will have the structure accepted on the basis of empirical test. Hopefully I am giving insight into why what you specialise in is appreciated in my world.