Ok no problem. My sloppiness. After all, my implementation wasn't
portable. So, let's fix it. After a while, discovered there's the
os.sep. Ok, replace "/" to os.sep, done. Then, bang, all hell
went lose. Because, the backslash is used as escape in string, so any
regex that manipulate path got fuc
i don't like python, and i prefer emacs lisp. The primary reason is
that python is not functional, especially with python 3. The python
community is full of fanatics with their drivels. In that respect,
it's not unlike Common Lisp community and Scheme lisp community.
What functional programming
actually have to return. You again have to transform the whole
PR> program, not just expand a call/cc macro locally inside functions that
PR> use it.
i think only functions that are coroutines should be fully transformed.
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
7))
(PROGN
(PROGN
(SETQ #:CPS-LET-I-1712
(1+ #:CPS-LET-I-1712)))
(#:TAGBODY-TAG-NEXT-LOOP-1713))
(#
then just say -- all-values, or solutions (first thing
that satisfies constaints).
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
(message (Hello 'Paul)
(you :wrote :on '(09 Dec 2006 02:55:49 -0800))
(
PR> "Alex Mizrahi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
??>> we can implement Scheme's call-with-current-continuation first :)
??>> it's relatively easy -- just a code walker th
ssible to optimize STORE_ATTR that way without changing
semantics.
by the way, maybe some optimizations are already implemented in Psyco?
it's Python JIT with profile-guided type optimization, but i don't know how
it deals with lookups..
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi)
reason to make a new DSL each day, but sometimes they
are good.
i've recently posted an example of DSL to do queries to RDF data base -- i
find it's very helpful.
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fin
der of parameters
in such constructor. (and it's not the only one such place in BitTorrent)
and that guy teaches us how to write maintanable code!
http://advogato.org/article/258.html
thus, you don't need macros to write unmaintanable code -- functions are
enough for this. and with mac
ith-current-continuation
PR> but Lisp doesn't have that.
we can implement Scheme's call-with-current-continuation first :)
it's relatively easy -- just a code walker that coverts everyting into CPS.
i've used one for a web application development.
)
(With-best-regards '
ommon-lisp package are immutable. that makes it possible to
optimize code.
and there's inlining. for example, in fib definition:
(defun fib (n)
(if (< n 2)
1
(+ (fib (- n 2))
(fib (- n 1)
CLISP does not even use symbol FIB in function bytecodes -
syntax
additionally. and it strains my brain less when i don't have to switch
between different languages.
is it possible to construct such helper functions (or whatever) to simplify
code in Python?
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Python, ML or Haskell syntax.
but homogenous syntax is very important for true macros.
??>> (and certainly lisp was invented much 30 years before
??>> Python, so that's Python uses Lisp features)
BS> I think you acknowledged that the syntax is different and not
BS> borrowed
-- since any symbol that is not inlined can change it's meaning in
any time.
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
nstructs that run faster.
no, there are no complicted constructs -- just it's designed with 30-year
history in mind, not like "let's make another simple scripting language".
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of k
run lots faster than lisp interpreters.
please check http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
to compare Python to Lisp SBCL. lisp is faster more then 10 times in many
benchmarks, and even more than 100 times faster in two benchmarks.
unfortunately there's no lisp interpreters (CLISP) in the benchmark
16 matches
Mail list logo
