ext-method @ (list #:msg (format #f "File error in ~S (~S)" path code)
#:path path #:code code #:fs fs
On 22 July 2014 15:03, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Tobias Brandt :
>
> > Couldn't just define like this:
> >
> > (define-class ())
> >
>
Couldn't just define like this:
(define-class ())
then define a side method:
(define-method (side (@ )) (slot-ref @ 'height))
This way, you're not storing the same information twice.
On 22 July 2014 14:18, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
> Consider this simple program:
>
> ===
Hi Taylan,
your points are all good and I kind of get the reasoning behind the current
semantics. I'm not trying to start a big discussion here, it's just a
little detail I noticed and that bothered me.
I don't really care what (lambda ()) evaluates to as long as it's
consistent with the rest of
Hi,
it seems to be illegal to write
(lambda ())
I would have expected this to evaluate to a procedure returning unspecified.
On the other hand, the following are all valid
(begin)
(define x (begin))
(lambda () x)
but
(lambda () (begin))
is not.
Why is that?
Cheers,
Tobia
cheme in the future and thought about how things translate from
Java/C#.
I know, it's not always a could idea to just literally translate things
from one
language to another.
Cheers,
Tobias
On 22 April 2013 06:39, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> On 22 April 2013 01:17, Tobias Brandt wrote:
>
x)) ;; change arguments
(format #t "bar: ~a\n" x))
(f (make ) 1)
=>
foo: 2
bar: 1
On 21 April 2013 18:05, Tobias Brandt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for your input. I tried to avoid the whole next-method issue
> entirely and defined a method for make on bar's m
Hi,
thanks for your input. I tried to avoid the whole next-method issue
entirely and defined a method for make on bar's metaclass instead.
(use-modules (oop goops))
(define-class () (s #:init-keyword #:s))
(define-class ())
(define-class () #:metaclass )
(define-method (make (self ) (i ))
I posed the following question regarding constructors in Lisp/CLOS on
stackoverflow:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16089809/whats-the-equivalent-of-constructors-in-clos
The accepted answer uses the ability of CLOS to modifiy the arguments
passed to CALL-NEXT-METHOD.
I know it's (currently) n
Now I feel stupid. Thanks!
On 17 April 2013 23:03, Panicz Maciej Godek wrote:
> Howdie!
>
> 2013/4/17 Tobias Brandt
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> according to the documentation, when GOOPS is loaded, 'display' becomes a
>> generic function.
>>
>
Hi guys,
according to the documentation, when GOOPS is loaded, 'display' becomes a
generic function.
To wit:
scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (oop goops))
scheme@(guile-user)> (class-of display)
$1 = #< 2cfa3c0>
But adding a new method has no effect:
scheme@(guile-user)> (define-class ())
s
> 0. I'm sure there is another way, but my mind blanks at the moment
After you got me started, I was able to simplify and generalize it a bit.
(-> is a GOOPS generic accessor I defined elsewhere. It works with
vectors, arrays, strings, etc ...)
(define-syntax with-accessors (lambda (stx) (synt
Hi,
is it possible to define a macro that does one thing when
it's in operator position and another when it's not?
I want to define a macro `with-vectors` that transforms this:
(with-vectors (v)
(v 0)
(set! (v 0) 'foo)
(some-procedure v))
into this:
(begin
(vector-ref v 0)
12 matches
Mail list logo
