[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 8, 7:32 am, Joost Kremers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't both man and those words for measurement come ultimately from
words for hand (similarly to words like manual, as in labor)?
no.
Do not bluntly contradict me in public.
I
Matthias Benkard wrote:
So this has nothing to
do with freedom in /any/ sense of the word, it has to do with a
political agenda opposed to the idea of private property.
Freedom is inherently political, you know. You're condemning the FSF
for being political, although the FSF's stated
Damien Kick wrote:
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:08:02 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So much for the free in free software. If you can't actually use
it without paying money, whether for the software or for some book, it
isn't really free, is it?
Please do not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 2, 1:22 pm, sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday Microsoft announced a new runtime for dynamic languages,
which they call DLR. It sits on top of the conventional .NET runtime
(CLR) and provides services for dynamically typed languages like
Python or
sturlamolden wrote:
On May 3, 2:15 am, Kaz Kylheku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kindly refrain from creating any more off-topic, cross-posted threads.
Thanks.
The only off-topic posting in this thread is your own (and now this
one).
Begone.
FWIW, I took Kaz's remark to be more of a joke
Xah Lee wrote:
Dear Ken,
I want to thank you for your spirit in supporting and leading the lisp
community, in spreading lisp the language both in what you have done
technically as well as evangelization, as well as the love and
knowledge attitude towards newsgroup communities in general,
George Neuner wrote:
On 17 Apr 2007 08:20:24 -0700, Ingo Menger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17 Apr., 12:33, Markus E Leypold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What makes Xah a troll is neither off-topic posts nor being
incoherent -- its the attitude. He's broadcasting his drivel to a
number of
Brian Adkins wrote:
John Nagle wrote:
Neither Lisp nor Python is an industrial strength language.
The infrastructure is too weak. Hosting providers and distro
makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They
care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP.
John Nagle wrote:
Brian Adkins wrote:
John Nagle wrote:
If you want to restart a debate, please go back and reply to some
serious post in the thread - don't hijack mine for your own evil
purposes and cut out the good parts - did you even see the movie?
If you want to post
Tech HR wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 26, 6:32 am, Tech HR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our
website is currently a LAMP appication with P=Python. We are looking for
bright motivated people who know or are willing to learn Python and/or
Linux, Apache and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Come on; you guys can't just leave this at 999 posts!
Funny you should whine, i was just getting ready to sign off with:
I noticed while singing the praises of auto-indentation that there was a
shortcoming in The Greatest Feature Known to Editing source code, which
greg wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
I did explain the last little fun bit (where reverse code miraculously
got a case-specific signed-value parameter bound to exactly the
right bit of math structure).
I didn't mention that because it was addressed by
another poster. The signature
Kay Schluehr wrote:
Ken Tilton schrieb:
Looks promising. How does a generic engine that sees only a solution (a
list of mathematical expressions and for each the transformations,
results, and opnds logged by individual TF functions) build up this
environment such that it has named
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Code is data is code
I was hoping no one would make that mistake. :) macros are all about
code is data, but code is not data in Python* so the two words code and
data serve to differentiate them for Pythonistas.
I
greg wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
So this:
(defmethod tf-reverse (id (eql ',sub-id)) resx (drv-opnds tf drv))
,@reverser)
becomes this:
(defmethod tf-reverse ((id (eql ',sub-id)) tf drv
aux (opnds (drv-opnds tf drv)))
(loop for resx
greg wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
The reason I post macro expansions along with examples of the macro
being applied is so that one can see what code would have to be
written if I did not have the defskill macro to write them for me.
It seems to me your brain is somewhat stuck on the use
greg wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
The last example showed the macro inserting code to magically produce
a binding inside the reverse function.
Are you sure? It looked to me like it was adding code *around*
the reverse function, not inside it. I posted a Python function
that achieves
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
Andrew Reilly wrote:
That all looks like data.
No, not reverse, the part you did not understand. I do not mean what the
code was doing, I meant that it was code.
Code is data is code
I was hoping no one would make that mistake. :) macros
greg wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
McCarthy: Is code also data in Python?
Norvig: No.
I don't think that was the right answer.
Norvig is a smart guy. He was talking to John McCarthy. He gave the
right answer. :)
He should have
said Yes, and then shown McCarthy eval() and exec
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Man that whole thing is messy.
I do not see much difference, except that the character count is 25%
less in the macro version:
The macro calls aren't so bad, but the macro definition is pretty
horrendous.
(a) /Precisely/ :)
(b
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
btw, you called the defskill messy (repeated below) messy. The only
text not specific to absolute value is D-E-F-S-K-I-L-L.
No, the messiness was not in the macro instantation (defskill blah...),
but in the defmacro that tells
Andrew Reilly wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:01:46 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
You just
aren't used to thinking at a level where one is writing code to write code.
Firstly, I'm looking into lisp because my current python project is too
full of boilerplate :-) and too slow. Coming from
Ken Tilton wrote:
Andrew Reilly wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:01:46 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
You just aren't used to thinking at a level where one is writing code
to write code.
Firstly, I'm looking into lisp because my current python project is too
full of boilerplate
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again, that is precisely the point of macrology (in cases like
this). When a pattern will repeat a sufficient number of times, and a
function cannot handle the job,
But this is not a case where a function can't handle the job
Andrew Reilly wrote:
Each skill seems to have a title, a
list of annotations, and a list of hints (and a reverse, which I don't
understand).
There's the problem.
That all looks like data.
No, not reverse, the part you did not understand. I do not mean what the
code was doing, I meant
Robert Uhl wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
meanwhile, I have not seen how Python lets you avoid revisiting dozens
of instances when changes to a mechanism are required.
I think his solution would have been to use:
def foo(**args):
everywhere, and call it like
Robert Uhl wrote:
Christophe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Uhl a écrit :
The argument from popularity is invalid. French units have overtaken
standard units,
Never heard of that French unit thing. Unless you talk about that
archaic unit system that was in use before the metric system
Ken Tilton wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you read On Lisp by Paul Graham? It is on-line. Just the preface
will do, I think, maybe also Chapter One where he raves on macros. Do
you think he is mistaken? Confused? Lying? Mutant?
I remember Paul
greg wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
pps. How would Python do this?
Here's one way it could look:
defskill(absolute-value,
title = Absolute Value,
annotations = [
Take the absolute value of #op#.,
The vertical bars around #op# mean 'the absolute value of' #op
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't know. The point is, we need code (not just data) in defskill
(apologies for nasty formatting):
Man that whole thing is messy. I can't for the life of me understand
why it's so important to use a macro for that. Even in Lisp
Ken Tilton wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't know. The point is, we need code (not just data) in defskill
(apologies for nasty formatting):
Man that whole thing is messy.
I do not see much difference, except that the character count is 25%
less
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Man that whole thing is messy. I can't for the life of me understand
why it's so important to use a macro for that. Even in Lisp, I'd
probably set up the reverse thingie as an auxiliary function.
And when you got to skill 42 and you
Ken Tilton wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't know. The point is, we need code (not just data) in defskill
(apologies for nasty formatting):
Man that whole thing is messy.
I do not see much difference, except
Pascal Costanza wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Pascal Costanza [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
May you have tried the wrong Lisp dialects so far:
(loop for i from 2 to 10 by 2
do (print i))
The loop language is so complicated and confusing that I never
bothered trying to learn it.
That
Paul Rubin wrote:
Pascal Costanza [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can start with loop by using only the simple and straightforward
constructs, and slowly move towards the more complicated cases when
necessary. The nice thing about loop is that with some practice, you
can write code that more or
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The loop language is so complicated and confusing that I never
bothered trying to learn it.
That was my stance for about seven years of intense Lisp. Then the
author of Practical Common Lisp did a nice job of breaking the whole
mess up
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, my. time to trot out my hey, X is cool, let's use it for
everything! rant.
Somehow it's something other than a rant if X is Lisp?
Ah, your discriminator misfired. Keep your eye on the bouncing rant:
I was not espousing any
Markus Triska wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think all-rules-all-the-time Prolog is the poster boy for paradigm
slavery. (I did try for a famous two months to use Prolog as a
general-purpose programming language.)
Don't expect to learn Prolog properly in so little time
Robert Uhl wrote:
Stephen Eilert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, let's suppose I now want to learn LISP (I did try, on several
occasions). What I would like to do would be to replace Python and
code GUI applications. Yes, those boring business-like applications
that have to access databases and
Harry George wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kay Schluehr wrote:
is rapidly replacing Perl, and Ruby is simultaneously and even more
rapidly replacing Python.
Really? Given its small base, the percentage increases in Ruby use
(for any reason) can look quite
André Thieme wrote:
mystilleef schrieb:
Ken Tilton wrote:
Lisp has all the cool qualities you like in your pets, plus native
compilation in most implementations, plus maturity and a standard, plus
a better OO, plus macros, plus a dozen more small wins. Including
automatic indentation
greg wrote:
Bill Atkins wrote:
You're missing Ken's point, which is that in Lisp an s-expression
represents a single concept - I can cut out the second form of an IF
and know that I'm cutting the entire test-form.
For selecting a single form, that's true. For
more than one form (such
greg wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if you guys would just fix
your language by adding homogeneous syntax and all that it brings with
it (macros, compilers, etc) we'd be happy to use your version of Lisp,
and all its great libraries, instead of ours! :-)
But if we did that, it
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:50:41 -0800, George Sakkis wrote:
André Thieme wrote:
On the other hand can I see difficulties in adding macros to Python,
or inventing a new object system, or adding new keywords without
changing the sources of Python itself.
Actually, an
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:52:33 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
Aahz wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mark Tarver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking at Python and I see that the syntax would appeal to a
newbie. Its clearer than ML which is a mess syntactically
tmh wrote:
snip
Time for some more wine.
...and then just cut and paste the snipped bit into:
http://wiki.alu.org/The_Road_to_Lisp_Survey
...if you are not there already. The survey questions are optional and
what you wrote is perfect as is. Tough call on what goes in:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
It is a good thing that not every
hare-brained idea that some random programmer comes up with can be
implemented as part of the core language.
Well, that's the FUD/strawman, but nothing more. Just a hobgoblin to
keep the Pythonistas from straying. But you have an
Paul Rubin wrote:
Do you know the Paul Graham piece Beating the Averages? It's at:
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
The error in it is that Lisp is really just another Blub.
http://weblog.raganwald.com/2006/10/are-we-blub-programmers.html
There we find: But when our
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like this is
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:02:59 +0200, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
you have an expression 3 + 4 which yields 7.
you have an expression 4 * 1 which yields 4.
if you paste 3 + 4 in place of 1, you'll have 4 * 3 + 4 = 16. as we know, *
is commutative, but 3 + 4 * 4 = 19.
so result
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like this is
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:29:56 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
David Lees wrote:
Those raving about
Lisp are quite accomplished at all those other languages, and know about
what they are talking.
Such a sweeping generalization. Every person who raves about Lisp
Alex Mizrahi wrote:
(message (Hello 'Ken)
(you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:26:02 -0500))
(
KT keep the Pythonistas from straying. But you have an excuse: Lispniks
KT always /talk/ about macros giving us the ability to create a DSL. But
KT no one does. :)
certainly there's no
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
Note also that after any amount of dicing I simply hit a magic key
combo and the editor reindents everything. In a sense, Lisp is the
language that handles indentation best.
Erm ... because there's an editor for it that indents automatically
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
But Lisp's syntax is so unlike most written natural languages that that it
is a whole different story. Yes, the human brain is amazingly flexible,
and people can learn extremely complex syntax and grammars (especially if
they start young enough) so I'm not surprised
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Some languages are too expressive.
:)
Look, all snarkiness aside, it just isn't true that stuff like this is
impossible in other languages. If Wolfram Fenske had said stuff like
this isn't easy in many other languages he would have been right.
Remember, Lisp macros
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
Kirk Sluder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
mystilleef [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1). More and better mature standard libraries (Languages don't matter,
libraries do).
On Lisp Macros:
I think they are overrated, and in general
mystilleef wrote:
Bill Atkins wrote:
Are any of these not subjective?
Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder.
Lisp is much more than a functional language.
Maybe so. But I've only ever appreciated its functional aspects. I
wouldn't choose Lisp or its derivatives for OO
Eric Pederson wrote:
No programmer who learned Lisp ever gave up before he learned Lisp.That
would be the obvious retort, but my observation was empirical, so I
am afraid you need numbers, not word games.
You seem awfully hostile, by the way. Won't that make it harder to
conduct an
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
yeah, I think it is. Folks don't vary that much. If every Lisp
programmer also reports parens disappearing at about thirty days, any
given non-Lispnik can pretty much bet on the same experience.
I think an editing program
André Thieme wrote:
Ken Tilton schrieb:
The last time we went thru this a Pythonista finally said, Oh, I get
it. These five lines of code I have to write all the time (two setup,
one func call, two cleanup) can be collapsed into one or two. The
thread will be hard to miss in Google
André Thieme wrote:
Ken Tilton schrieb:
André Thieme wrote:
Ken Tilton schrieb:
The last time we went thru this a Pythonista finally said, Oh, I get
it. These five lines of code I have to write all the time (two
setup, one func call, two cleanup) can be collapsed into one or two
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Rightly or wrongly, people fear...
So when people fear wrongly we burn whatever witches we must to reassure
them?
that Lisp's macros push Lisp closer to
that hypothetical anything-goes language than is healthy. Maybe that's a
problem of perception rather than a
greg wrote:
Bill Atkins wrote:
And mistakes in nesting show up as mistakes in
indenting.
Er, hang on a moment... how do you *know* when you've
got a mistake in indending? You must be visually
verifying the indentation... rather like one does
with Python code...
Absolutely, and you
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:55:13 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, if you want to tell me that, despite all the talk, Lisp coders don't
actually create new syntax or mini-languages all that often, that they
just use macros as
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The day has not yet arrived that nobody ever needs to edit code in a
plain, vanilla text editor.
Gee, 200kloc of Lisp and I have not got there yet. Keep banging that
drom, Steve. :)
ken
--
Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm
Well, I've
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
If that's the best example of what macros can be used for, frankly I'm
unimpressed.
We're shocked.
:)
ken
--
Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm
Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five
years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:06:29 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
As I type each right parens I eyeball
its partner as the editor highlights it to make sure I have not missed
anything,
Er, weren't you one of the people claiming that you don't notice parens
when you're
Mark Tarver wrote:
How do you compare Python to Lisp?
Lisp programmers are smarter and better looking. And better programmers.
Not sure if that is what you were after, though.
What specific advantages do you
think that one has over the other?
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
Alex Mizrahi wrote:
(message (Hello 'Bjoern)
BS Can you give an example? I cannot imagine how homogenity
always BS results in easiness.
homogenity means that i can cut any expression and paste in any
other expression, and as long as lexical variables
Aahz wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mark Tarver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking at Python and I see that the syntax would appeal to a
newbie. Its clearer than ML which is a mess syntactically. But I
don't see where the action is in Python. Not yet anyway. Lisp syntax
is easy
George Sakkis wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too...
Mark Tarver wrote:
How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
think that one has over the other?
(Common) Lisp is the only industrial strength language with
David Lees wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too...
Mark Tarver wrote:
How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
think that one has over the other?
(Common) Lisp is the only industrial strength language with
Xah Lee wrote:
Logo LISP
Xah Lee, 2006-12
Ken Tilton wrote:
«Small problem. You forget that Ron Garret wants us to change the
name of Common Lisp as the sure-fire way to make it more popular (well,
hang on, he says it is necessary, not sufficient. Anyway...) I do not
think we
alex23 wrote:
Xah Lee wrote:
No personal offense intended, but human animal's history is what? 3000
years at least in recorded history? And, all you can think of is what,
the view points of a fraction of your personal life span?
Thank god evolution spat you out to lead us all to the
Xah Lee wrote:
• What Languages to Hate, Xah Lee, 2002
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/language_to_hate.html
Nonsense. This is technology, not religion. Technologists in fact have a
responsibility to identify and use the best tools available.
Xah, you are getting soft in your old
Luis M. González wrote:
Alok wrote:
While posting a comment on http://www.reddit.com I got an error page
with the following curious statement on it.
reddit broke (sorry)
looks like we shouldn't have stopped using lisp...
See screenshot at
The royal We has just learned that His Kennyness will be honoring the
boozehounds of LispNYC with His Presence tonight (deets below).
He will come bearing Celtk and news of PyCells, though the top billing
tonight goes to SoC student Extraordinaire Samantha Kleinberg.
kenzo
Please join us for
Joe Marshall wrote:
Xah Lee wrote:
in March, i posted a essay What is Expressiveness in a Computer
Language, archived at:
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/what_is_expresiveness.html
I was informed then that there is a academic paper written on this
subject.
On the Expressive Power of
Tim N. van der Leeuw wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree there are limits to you right to free speech, but I believe Xah
Lee is not crossing
any boundaries. If he starts taking over newspapers and TV stations be
sure to notify me,
I might revise my position.
Immanuel
Perhaps he's not
Ben Bullock wrote:
Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you believe this lobbying to my webhosting provider is unjust,
please write to my web hosting provider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why don't you just change your provider? It would take less time than this.
Ben wrote:
This kind of discussions between two groups of people,
neither of who know the other person's language very well just wind me
up something chronic!
I must say, it is pretty funny how a flamewar turned into a pretty
interesting SoC project.
Anything that makes programming more
Lasse Rasinen wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want to insist on how perfect your code is, please go find
ltktest-cells-inside.lisp in the source you downloaded and read the long
comment detailing the requirements I have identified for data integrity.
Then (a) tell me how
Lasse Rasinen wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if any concepts have survived to the Python version. Since Python's object
model is sufficiently different, the system is based on rules being
defined per-class...
That will be a total disaster for PyCells, if true. But I do
Ben wrote:
Nothing you have described sounds that complicated, and you never come
up with concrete objections to other peoples code (apart that it took
10 years to write in Lisp, so it must be really hard)
Oh, now I have to spend an hour dissecting any code you people toss-off
that does
Ken Tilton wrote:
Ben wrote:
Nothing you have described sounds that complicated, and you never come
up with concrete objections to other peoples code (apart that it took
10 years to write in Lisp, so it must be really hard)
Oh, now I have to spend an hour dissecting any code you
Lasse Rasinen wrote:
[I trimmed some of the newsgroups away; this mostly concerns Python and Lisp]
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lasse Rasinen wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if any concepts have survived to the Python version. Since Python's object
model
Lasse Rasinen wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ps. flaming aside, PyCells really would be amazingly good for Python. And
so Google. (Now your job is on the line. g) k
Here's something I wrote this week, mostly as a mental exercise ;-)
It's fun, right? But what you have
Michele Simionato wrote:
jayessay wrote:
I was saying that you are mistaken in that pep-0343 could be used to
implement dynamically scoped variables. That stands.
Proof by counter example:
from __future__ import with_statement
import threading
special = threading.local()
def
Alexander Schmolck wrote:
jayessay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michele Simionato [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was interested in a proof of concept, to show that Python can
emulate Lisp special variables with no big effort.
OK, but the sort of proof of concept given here is something you can
Alexander Schmolck wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In Common Lisp we would have:
(defvar *x*) ;; makes it special
(setf *x* 1)
(print *x*) ;;- 1
(let ((*x* 2))
(print *x*)) ;; - 2
(print *x*) ;; - 1
You seem to think that conflating special
Alexander Schmolck wrote:
Duane Rettig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexander Schmolck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In Common Lisp we would have:
(defvar *x*) ;; makes it special
(setf *x* 1)
(print *x*) ;;- 1
(let ((*x* 2))
(print
. So I'm a little confused about what Ken
Tilton is getting at.
Paul, there is no conflict between your example and mine, but I can see
why you think mine does not demonstrate dynamic binding: I did not
demonstrate the binding applying across a function call.
What might be even more
Everything else responded to separately, but...
I'd like to see a demonstration that using the same binding syntax for special
and lexical variables buys you something apart from bugs.
Buys me something? Why do I have to sell simplicity, transparency, and
clean syntax on c.l.python?
kenny
sross wrote:
I do wonder what would happen to Cells if I ever want to support
multiple threads. Or in a parallel processing environment.
AFAIK It should be fine.
In LW, SBCL and ACL all bindings of dynamic variables are thread-local.
Ah, I was guilty of making an unspoken segue: the
Boris Borcic wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
Now if you are like most people, you think that means X. It does not.
As far as natural language and understanding are concerned, to mean
means conformity to what most people understand, Humpty Dumpties
notwithstanding.
Nonsense. You
Boris Borcic wrote:
Bill Atkins wrote:
It's interesting how much people who don't have macros like to put
them down and treat them as some arcane art that are too *insane*ly
powerful to be used well.
They're actually very straightforward and can often (shock of shocks!)
make your code
[Sorry, I missed this one originally.]
David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Tue, 09 May 2006 05:35:47 -0500, David C. Ullrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:46:57 -0400, Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...]
If you, um, look at the code you see that cells.a = 42 triggers
cells
Chris F Clark wrote:
David C Ullrich asked:
Q: How do we ensure there are no loops in the dependencies?
Do we actually run the whole graph through some algorithm
to verify there are no loops?
The question you are asking is the dependency graph a directed
acyclic graph (commonly called
Ketil Malde wrote:
Sometimes the best documentation is the code itself. Sometimes the
best name for a function is the code itself.
Absolutely. When I take over someone else's code I begin by deleting all
the comments. Then I read the code. If a variable or function name makes
no sense
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
