On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:49:57
: Dan Sugalski wrote:
: >
: >Almost. At least perl 5's macros look like C. Emacs' macro horrors
: >make C look like Lisp...
:
: This is because C is _clearly_ a dialect of Lisp . . .
Yeah, look at all the extra p
--
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:49:57
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>Almost. At least perl 5's macros look like C. Emacs' macro horrors
>make C look like Lisp...
This is because C is _clearly_ a dialect of Lisp . . .
-Erik
>--
> Dan
>
>-
Dan Sugalski wrote :
>
> And, FWIW, emacs is written in C. Granted a much macro-mutated
> version of C, but C nonetheless.
Just like Perl 5 ;-)
> I didn't call the problem unreasonable, I was objecting to its
> characterization as an "essential feature". It isn't. A useful thing,
> definitely, but there are a lot of those. It's hardly essential any
> more than, say, a hash that automagically maps to the current
> directory's files (ite
At 7:22 PM + 10/21/02, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote :
And, FWIW, emacs is written in C. Granted a much macro-mutated
version of C, but C nonetheless.
Just like Perl 5 ;-)
Almost. At least perl 5's macros look like C. Emacs' macro horrors
make C look like Lisp...
--
argument otherwise, I'm all ears.
While they're certainly useful, I think essential's an awfully strong
word there. You'll note that, just off the top of my head, C, BASIC,
Fortran, Perl, Python, Java, Ruby, Pascal, Oberon, Modula (2 and 3),
Forth, Eiffel, Haskell, BLISS, C++,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Whipp) writes:
> It should be possible to define the bookmark methods on the basic string
> class to rebless the object onto a more powerful subclass.
That makes it a doubly good candidate for modulehood.
--
It's 106 miles from Birmingham, we've got an eighth of a tank
orth, Eiffel, Haskell, BLISS, C++, C#, COBOL, PL/I, APL, B, and BCPL
> all don't do character properties/attributes.
--
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > Ok, how about this: Is there a reason I to? Or
> > should I not go there?
>
> Off hand, it sounds expensive. I don't see a way to only let
> the people who use it incur the penalty, but my vision isn't
> the best in the world.
It should be possible to define the
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 02:20:56PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Fair enough. Then tell me how you solve this problem: You have a text
> file in a string, that the user has marked several places in. He's
> referring to words for which he wants to keep bookmarks in. Now, he
> deletes text (using su
'm all ears.
While they're certainly useful, I think essential's an awfully strong
word there. You'll note that, just off the top of my head, C, BASIC,
Fortran, Perl, Python, Java, Ruby, Pascal, Oberon, Modula (2 and 3),
Forth, Eiffel, Haskell, BLISS, C++, C#, COBOL, PL/I,
t otherwise, I'm all ears.
>
> While they're certainly useful, I think essential's an awfully strong
> word there. You'll note that, just off the top of my head, C, BASIC,
> Fortran, Perl, Python, Java, Ruby, Pascal, Oberon, Modula (2 and 3),
> Forth, Eiff
12 matches
Mail list logo
