On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 10:28 +0400, 白い熊 wrote:
> Nala Ginrut wrote:
> >you may try:
> >(with-output-to-string (lambda () (apropos "guile")))
> >you're so lucky that "with-output-to-string" appears in clisp, but I'm
> >not familiar with elisp
>
> Very close I think, it exists in elisp too, however
Nala Ginrut wrote:
>you may try:
>(with-output-to-string (lambda () (apropos "guile")))
>you're so lucky that "with-output-to-string" appears in clisp, but I'm
>not familiar with elisp
Very close I think, it exists in elisp too, however
(with-output-to-string (lambda () (apropos "clisp")))
is tru
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 08:47 +0400, 白い熊 wrote:
> Nala Ginrut wrote:
> >Here's a dilemma， unless guile/clisp/emacs have the same
> >checker-procedure with same name and definition, you have no promise to
> >check it under different language environment. The best way is
> >prepossess which is portabl
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 08:47 +0400, 白い熊 wrote:
> Nala Ginrut wrote:
> >Here's a dilemma， unless guile/clisp/emacs have the same
> >checker-procedure with same name and definition, you have no promise to
> >check it under different language environment. The best way is
> >prepossess which is portabl
Nala Ginrut wrote:
>Here's a dilemma， unless guile/clisp/emacs have the same
>checker-procedure with same name and definition, you have no promise to
>check it under different language environment. The best way is
>prepossess which is portable.
Yes, I have been thinking very hard about this. The c
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 15:21 +0400, 白い熊 wrote:
> Nala Ginrut wrote:
>
> >> I would like to program for Guile as the lowest denominator.
> >>
> >> What is the proper check I should define that would tell me whether
> >I'm currently interpreting the code in Guile, or Emacs, or Crisp.
> >>
> >
