Re: Strip signature on reply without standard separator

[Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>]

Satoshi Yoshida wrote:

>> In your case, you could do
>> 
>> (defun strip-signature (re &optional rep)
>>   (or rep (setq rep ""))
>>   ;; ...
>
> It's amazing. But I want to avoid grobal variable.
> Please show me the way to use let instead of setq.
> I don't know how to use it in this case.

'rep' is a formal parameter of the function, under
lexical/static scope - which you should always use BTW, put

;;; -*- lexical-binding: t -*-

topmost in your file (every Elisp file) if you didn't - that
means you get a local variable that again is lexical/static
and, equivalently, not dynamic/special.

Just try - and you will fly ...

;;; -*- lexical-binding: t -*-

(defun c ()
  (message b) )

(defun a (b)
  (message b)
  (setq b "ah")
  (c) )

;; (a "oh")
;;         ^ eval me

Also, byte-compiling this will echo a warning saying b is
a free variable, and this even under dynamic/special scope
where the code actually works tho (i.e. this particular use of
'a' and 'c' where 'a' is used first).

>> Okay, I dare say most people would write that
>> 
>>   (dolist (e '((1 2) (3 4)))
>>     (message "%s %s" (car e) (cadr e)) )
>> 
>> Or maybe
>> 
>>   (require 'cl-lib)
>>   (cl-loop for (a b) in '((x y) (i j)) do
>>     (message "%s %s" a b) )
>
> Thank you. I want to use dolist.

As you see you don't need `apply' even with `dolist', no need.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal