Doing it simply by ever longer function names limits you when it comes to
future possible additions where instantiation and member variables make the
solution more elegant.
The added code complexity that holding that door open in the current code is
worth it.
As far as speed goes in my case the b
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 01:54:25PM +0700, Henrik Sarvell wrote:
> Doing it simply by ever longer function names limits you when it comes to
> future possible additions where instantiation and member variables make the
> solution more elegant.
True. An additional advantage is that you can subclass
Hi all,
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 08:17:04AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> A call like
>
>(foo> '+Pckg )
>
> is in no regard more encapsulating the namespace then
>
>(foo.Pckg )
>
> but it is more tedious to write and read, takes up two cells more than
> the second (4 versus 2), and e
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 02:46:54PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> 1. I would put these three expressions into "lib.l"
> ...
>(de dp "Args"
> (push *Class "Args")
> (let "@Msg" (car "Args")
> (def "@Msg"
> (curry ("@Msg") @
>(if (method '"@Msg"
The only objection I have against this is that it now becomes impossible to
know if a certain function is global or not, and if not, to know which class
it belongs, from simply looking at the invocation.
I think this is a dangerous step towards too much magic that might create
confusion and logica
Hi Henrik,
> The only objection I have against this is that it now becomes impossible to
> know if a certain function is global or not, and if not, to know which class
> it belongs, from simply looking at the invocation.
True.
For that reason I first used a new convention using the '%' character
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 05:50:07PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> ...
>(class +Add)
>
>(dp foo% (X Y)
> (+ X Y) )
>
>(dp bar% (X Y Z)
> (+ X Y Z) )
BTW, another serious drawback with the (foo> '+Cls ) approach is
that you can't easily do some things which make Lisp so p
The new % would solve some problems and you are right about the mapcar thing
which can be annoying.
However the ambiguity as to which class is controlling the behavior of func%
remains but can perhaps be mitigated by yet another convention requiring you
to put the context call in a special place,
