On Mon 29 Jul 2013 10:36, Nala Ginrut writes:
> If you just want to check whether a symbol was defined, try:
> (module-defined? (current-module) 'function-lambda-expression)
Alternate spelling: (defined? 'foo)
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
() 白い熊
() Thu, 01 Aug 2013 16:42:31 +0400
So if anyone would have alternate ideas [...]
If you are comfortable w/ starting from a Lisp (Emacs or CLISP) base,
perhaps you can find fruitful the "recode" facility of CEDET:
http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/SemanticRecoder
This addresses the (una
On 2013-08-01 16:42, 白い熊 wrote:
Clisp, or Guile and it'll run. Currently I like playing with Clisp
more, what I like about Guile is that it's a new project, so would
Meant "GNU project", not "new project". :@)
--
白い熊
On 2013-08-01 05:12, Nala Ginrut wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 12:20 +0200, Ralf Mattes wrote:
Isn't the main problem here that the OP assumes that all three
languages
have "the same syntax"? This isn't true at all. They share some basic
syntax but any "real" CL/Elisp/Scheme code will use more t
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 12:20 +0200, Ralf Mattes wrote:
> Isn't the main problem here that the OP assumes that all three languages
> have "the same syntax"? This isn't true at all. They share some basic
> syntax but any "real" CL/Elisp/Scheme code will use more than this basic
> subset. And even with
Isn't the main problem here that the OP assumes that all three languages
have "the same syntax"? This isn't true at all. They share some basic
syntax but any "real" CL/Elisp/Scheme code will use more than this basic
subset. And even within this limited syntactic subset, while one syntax
will work
On 29 July 2013 10:21, 白い熊 wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I'm developping a program which I'd like to be able to use without
> modification with Guile as the interpreter as well as Emacs lisp and clisp.
>
>
Cond-expand macro was supposed to assist "conditional compilation",
see an example below. I am not su
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.
> >>
> >
Nala Ginrut wrote:
>I think the most efficient way is to use 'cpp' of gcc to do the
>pre-processer, or you have to try eval-when, please read the manual for
OK, I did read up on it, but it's not a parent how to go about this
interpreter testing.
I don't want to get a preprocessor into it, beca
I think the most efficient way is to use 'cpp' of gcc to do the
pre-processer, or you have to try eval-when, please read the manual for it.
在 2013-7-29 PM7:23，"白い熊" 写道：
> Nala Ginrut wrote:
>
> >> I would like to program for Guile as the lowest denominator.
> >>
> >> What is the proper check I sh
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.
>>
>
>If you just want to check whether a symbol was defined, try:
>(mo
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 10:21 +0200, 白い熊 wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I'm developping a program which I'd like to be able to use without
> modification with Guile as the interpreter as well as Emacs lisp and clisp.
>
Hi! Welcome to Guile!
> So far, I was only programming for Emacs/Clisp, for this I us
Hello:
I'm developping a program which I'd like to be able to use without modification
with Guile as the interpreter as well as Emacs lisp and clisp.
So far, I was only programming for Emacs/Clisp, for this I used a rather crude
check of:
(defun kx-emacsp ()
(not (functionp #'function-l
18 matches
Mail list logo
