Thanks! I'll try that.
On 8 Apr 2015 16:53, "Eli Naeher" wrote:
> I ran into this problem last year and was able to watch it successfully by
> using the youtube-dl tool (http://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/) to download
> the video (and I then had no problems playing it locally).
>
> -Eli
>
> On Wed,
I ran into this problem last year and was able to watch it successfully by
using the youtube-dl tool (http://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/) to download
the video (and I then had no problems playing it locally).
-Eli
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:31 AM, henry w wrote:
> I just checked the comments and i
I just checked the comments and it has been this way for quite some time.
Does anyone know if it can be found elsewhere?
i found old links to bliptv but it has been taken down from there.
Thanks
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To p
On 16 Nov., 23:31, Simon Brooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone written a very simple introduction to Clojure for LISP
> hackers? I've spend an evening playing with it pretty intensively, and
> thus far I haven't got a thing to work. I've
> readhttp://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Clojure_Program
the vector syntax seems nice to me. you get the whole "() means
function", "[] means sequential binding", "{} means associative
binding", and it makes code easier to read/skim over.
you could have lists for seq binding, but i think using a different
syntax gets you out of that "everything is a lis
I fully agree with you Konrad.
If Clojure eases up code reading for non-Lispers while not changing the
principles behind then what's the problem ?
As far as breaking the s-expr esthetics... bof, I could not care less.
Easier here means easier to understand for non-Lispers.
They are the ones we nee
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Rich Hickey wrote:
> I've presented Clojure to many of the people who wrote
> CL and Scheme, and no one can deny it is a Lisp.
I'd also add that at Lisp50 Clojure was very well received by many Lisperati,
and many, if not most, of the folks there were *way* into Scheme and
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Stuart Halloway
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> I have converted a bunch of the examples from Practical Common Lisp
> into Clojure [1]. You might find this helpful in seeing things from a
> Clojure perspective.
>
> Cheers,
> Stuart
>
> [1] http://blog
You contend that Lisp is regular, without defining regular. I contend
that as soon as you have ' it is not regular, and no one writes Lisp
without '.
You keep using the term 'syntax' for Clojure's non-list data
structures. If list literals are not syntax, neither are vector or map
literals.
You
Hi Simon,
I have converted a bunch of the examples from Practical Common Lisp
into Clojure [1]. You might find this helpful in seeing things from a
Clojure perspective.
Cheers,
Stuart
[1] http://blog.thinkrelevance.com/2008/9/16/pcl-clojure
> Has anyone written a very simple introduction
On Nov 17, 4:52 am, Luc Prefontaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I never read anywhere in the documentation or in the user group that
> Clojure is a Common LISP implementation.
>
> Since it's existence, LISP has not gained a large acceptance in the
> commercial market compared to other "conventi
On Nov 17, 2008, at 13:56, Simon Brooke wrote:
> However, you're dead wrong about Lots of Irritating Stupid
> Parentheses. They are the heart of the language: the fact that it does
> not need any irregular syntax, because everything is regular.
For me, the heart of Lisp is that code is expressed
On Nov 17, 3:52 am, Luc Prefontaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Since it's existence, LISP has not gained a large acceptance in the
> commercial market compared to other "conventional" programming
> languages.
This is true; I think, though, it's largely a fashion thing. In the
days when you and
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Simon Brooke wrote:
> I admit I started without reading the documentation, but having got
> stuck I then read the documentation - both that at Clojure.org and
> that in the Wikibook - carefully. It didn't help.
I just don't see how that's possible, since somehow I've managed
On Nov 17, 7:43 am, "Howard Lewis Ship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I generally like that Clojure dispenses with parens that exist for the
> benefit of the evaluator rather than the developer; thus far fewer
> parens when using (cond). Still, my old Lisp habits (20 years without
> use) succumbed
On Nov 16, 11:01 pm, Brian W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm going to assume this is serious and not a joke, but you do realize
> Clojure is already quite well documented at clojure.org?
I admit I started without reading the documentation, but having got
stuck I then read the documentation - bot
I hope you are either 14 years old, or joking. Rather than sitting down
and attempting to conjure up perfect lines of a new programming language
you have never used before, it might be good to spend some time reading!
Learning new things is good for your brain, and I can promise you
Clojure
I generally like that Clojure dispenses with parens that exist for the
benefit of the evaluator rather than the developer; thus far fewer
parens when using (cond). Still, my old Lisp habits (20 years without
use) succumbed as much as Simons. See my earlier thread about
exception reporting.
Coul
Hi Simon,
there is a detailed explanation of syntax, data
structures etc. as well as a complete reference
at the Clojure site[1].
Then there's a wiki[2] with a lot of information of
setting Clojure up with different editors like emacs
or vim and a lot of examples. Also explaining
some of the qui
I never read anywhere in the documentation or in the user group that
Clojure is a Common LISP implementation.
Since it's existence, LISP has not gained a large acceptance in the
commercial market compared to other "conventional" programming
languages.
I started to use it 28 years ago (UCI Lisp on
I'll add that:
(cond (foo bar) (baz plugh)) => (cond (foo) (bar) (baz) (plugh))
This particular CL difference is listed on the wiki page you listed:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Clojure_Programming#Clojure_for_Common_Lisp_Programmers
I also didn't have anywhere near these kinds of problems get
I'm going to assume this is serious and not a joke, but you do realize
Clojure is already quite well documented at clojure.org?
#t t => true
define defun =>defn
car, cdr, caar, etc. ~> first, rest, ffirst, rrest, frest, rfirst
arglists are vectors because [ ] stand out better
Has anyone written a very simple introduction to Clojure for LISP
hackers? I've spend an evening playing with it pretty intensively, and
thus far I haven't got a thing to work. I've read
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Clojure_Programming#Clojure_for_Common_Lisp_Programmers,
but it hasn't helped me.
23 matches
Mail list logo
