[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Oct 8, 7:32 am, Joost Kremers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>Don't both "man" and those words for measurement come ultimately from
>>>words for "hand" (similarly to words like "manual", as in labor)?
>>
>>no.
>
>
> Do not bluntly con
Matthias Benkard wrote:
>>So this has nothing to
>>do with freedom in /any/ sense of the word, it has to do with a
>>political agenda opposed to the idea of private property.
>
>
> Freedom is inherently political, you know. You're condemning the FSF
> for being political, although the FSF's st
Damien Kick wrote:
> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:08:02 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> So much for the "free" in "free software". If you can't actually use
>>> it without paying money, whether for the software or for some book, it
>>> isn't really free, is it?
>>
sturlamolden wrote:
> On May 3, 2:15 am, Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Kindly refrain from creating any more off-topic, cross-posted threads.
>>Thanks.
>
>
> The only off-topic posting in this thread is your own (and now this
> one).
> Begone.
FWIW, I took Kaz's remark to be m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On May 2, 1:22 pm, sturlamolden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On Monday Microsoft announced a new runtime for dynamic languages,
>>which they call "DLR". It sits on top of the conventional .NET runtime
>>(CLR) and provides services for dynamically typed languages lik
Xah Lee wrote:
> Dear Ken,
>
> I want to thank you for your spirit in supporting and leading the lisp
> community, in spreading lisp the language both in what you have done
> technically as well as evangelization, as well as the love and
> knowledge attitude towards newsgroup communities in gene
George Neuner wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2007 08:20:24 -0700, Ingo Menger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>On 17 Apr., 12:33, Markus E Leypold
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What makes Xah a troll is neither off-topic posts nor being
>>>incoherent -- its the attitude. He's broadcasting his dri
John Nagle wrote:
> Brian Adkins wrote:
>
>> John Nagle wrote:
>
>
>> If you want to restart a debate, please go back and reply to some
>> serious post in the thread - don't hijack mine for your own evil
>> purposes and cut out the good parts - did you even see the movie?
>
>
>If you w
Brian Adkins wrote:
> John Nagle wrote:
>
>>Neither Lisp nor Python is an "industrial strength language".
>> The infrastructure is too weak. Hosting providers and distro
>> makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They
>> care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python o
Tech HR wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>>On Feb 26, 6:32 am, Tech HR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Our
>>>website is currently a LAMP appication with P=Python. We are looking for
>>>bright motivated people who know or are willing to learn Python and/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Come on; you guys can't just leave this at 999 posts!
>
Funny you should whine, i was just getting ready to sign off with:
I noticed while singing the praises of auto-indentation that there was a
shortcoming in The Greatest Feature Known to Editing source code, whic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>Code is data is code
>>
>>I was hoping no one would make that mistake. :) macros are all about
>>code is data, but code is not data in Python* so the two words co
Kay Schluehr wrote:
> Ken Tilton schrieb:
>
>
>>Looks promising. How does a generic engine that sees only a solution (a
>>list of mathematical expressions and for each the transformations,
>>results, and opnds logged by individual TF functions) build up this
>
greg wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> I did explain the last little fun bit (where reverse code miraculously
>> got a case-specific "signed-value" parameter bound to exactly the
>> right bit of math structure).
>
>
> I didn't mention that b
greg wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> McCarthy: "Is code also data in Python?"
>> Norvig: "No."
>
>
> I don't think that was the right answer.
Norvig is a smart guy. He was talking to John McCarthy. He gave the
right answer. :)
> He
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>Andrew Reilly wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That all looks like data.
>>
>>No, not reverse, the part you did not understand. I do not mean what the
>>code was doing, I meant that it was code.
>>
>
greg wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> The last example showed the macro inserting code to magically produce
>> a binding inside the reverse function.
>
>
> Are you sure? It looked to me like it was adding code *around*
> the reverse function, not inside it. I p
greg wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> The reason I post macro expansions along with examples of the macro
>> being applied is so that one can see what code would have to be
>> written if I did not have the defskill macro to "write" them for me.
>
>
greg wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> So this:
>> (defmethod tf-reverse (id (eql ',sub-id)) resx (drv-opnds tf drv))
>> ,@reverser)
>>
>> becomes this:
>>
>> (defmethod tf-reverse ((id (eql ',sub-id)) tf dr
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>meanwhile, I have not seen how Python lets you avoid revisiting dozens
>>of instances when changes to a mechanism are required.
>
>
> I think his solution would have been to use:
>
> def
Andrew Reilly wrote:
>> Each skill seems to have a title, a
> list of annotations, and a list of hints (and a reverse, which I don't
> understand).
There's the problem.
> That all looks like data.
No, not reverse, the part you did not understand. I do not mean what the
code was doing, I mea
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Again, that is precisely the point of macrology (in cases like
>>this). When a pattern will repeat a sufficient number of times, and a
>>function cannot handle the job,
>
>
> But this is n
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Andrew Reilly wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:01:46 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You just aren't used to thinking at a level where one is writing code
>>> to write code.
>>
>>
>>
>
Andrew Reilly wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:01:46 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>You just
>>aren't used to thinking at a level where one is writing code to write code.
>
>
> Firstly, I'm looking into lisp because my current python project is to
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>btw, you called the defskill messy (repeated below) "messy". The only
>>text not specific to absolute value is D-E-F-S-K-I-L-L.
>
>
> No, the messiness was not in the macro instantatio
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>>Man that whole thing is messy.
>>
>>I do not see much difference, except that the character count is 25%
>>less in the macro version:
>
>
> The macro calls aren't so ba
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Paul Rubin wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>> don't know. The point is, we need code (not just data) in defskill
>>>> (apol
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>Man that whole thing is messy. I can't for the life of me understand
>>>why it's so important to use a macro for that. Even in Lisp, I'd
>>>probably set up the reverse thin
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> don't know. The point is, we need code (not just data) in defskill
>>> (apologies for nasty formatting):
>>
>>
>>
>>
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>don't know. The point is, we need code (not just data) in defskill
>>(apologies for nasty formatting):
>
>
> Man that whole thing is messy. I can't for the life of me understand
>
greg wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> pps. How would Python do this?
>
>
> Here's one way it could look:
>
> defskill("absolute-value",
> title = "Absolute Value",
> annotations = [
> "Take the absolute value o
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Have you read On Lisp by Paul Graham? It is on-line. Just the preface
>>> will do, I think, maybe also Chapter One where he raves on macros. Do
>&
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Christophe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Robert Uhl a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>The argument from popularity is invalid. French units have overtaken
>>>standard units,
>>
>>Never heard of that French unit thing. Unless you talk about that
>>archaic unit system that was in use befor
Robert Uhl wrote:
> "Stephen Eilert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>So, let's suppose I now want to learn LISP (I did try, on several
>>occasions). What I would like to do would be to replace Python and
>>code GUI applications. Yes, those boring business-like applications
>>that have to access
Markus Triska wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>I think all-rules-all-the-time Prolog is the poster boy for paradigm
>>slavery. (I did try for a famous two months to use Prolog as a
>>general-purpose programming language.)
>
>
>
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Oh, my. time to trot out my "hey, X is cool, let's use it for
>>everything!" rant.
>
>
> Somehow it's something other than a rant if X is Lisp?
Ah, your discriminator mis
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>>The loop language is so complicated and confusing that I never
>>>>bothered trying to learn it.
>>
>>That was my stance for about seven years of intense Lisp. Then the
>>auth
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>You can start with loop by using only the simple and straightforward
>>constructs, and slowly move towards the more complicated cases when
>>necessary. The nice thing about loop is that with some practice, you
>>can write code t
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>> Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> May you have tried the wrong Lisp dialects so far:
>>>
>>> (loop for i from 2 to 10 by 2
>>>do (print i))
>>
>>
>> The loop language is so complicated and confusing that I never
>> bothered
greg wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> So if you guys would just fix
>> your language by adding homogeneous syntax and all that it brings with
>> it (macros, compilers, etc) we'd be happy to use your version of Lisp,
>> and all its great libraries, instead of ours! :-)
>
>
> But if we did
greg wrote:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
>
>> You're missing Ken's point, which is that in Lisp an s-expression
>> represents a single concept - I can cut out the second form of an IF
>> and know that I'm cutting the entire test-form.
>
>
> For selecting a single form, that's true. For
> more than one
André Thieme wrote:
> mystilleef schrieb:
>
>> Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>> Lisp has all the cool qualities you like in your pets, plus native
>>> compilation in most implementations, plus maturity and a standard, plus
>>> a better OO, plus ma
Harry George wrote:
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Kay Schluehr wrote:
>>
>>
>>>is rapidly replacing Perl, and Ruby is simultaneously and even more
>>>rapidly replacing Python.
>
>
> Really? Given its small base, the percentage increases in Ruby use
> (for any reaso
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:06:29 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>As I type each right parens I eyeball
>>its partner as the editor highlights it to make sure I have not missed
>>anything,
>
>
> Er, weren't you one of th
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> If that's the best example of what macros can be used for, frankly I'm
> unimpressed.
We're shocked.
:)
ken
--
Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm
"Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five
years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I fin
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The day has not yet arrived that nobody ever needs to edit code in a
> plain, vanilla text editor.
Gee, 200kloc of Lisp and I have not got there yet. Keep banging that
drom, Steve. :)
ken
--
Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm
"Well, I've
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:55:13 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>
>>Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>Now, if you want to tell me that, despite all the talk, Lisp coders don't
>>>actually create new syntax or mini-languages all that often, that they
>>>just use
greg wrote:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
>
>> And mistakes in nesting show up as mistakes in
>> indenting.
>
>
> Er, hang on a moment... how do you *know* when you've
> got a mistake in indending? You must be visually
> verifying the indentation... rather like one does
> with Python code...
Absolutel
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Rightly or wrongly, people fear...
So when people fear wrongly we burn whatever witches we must to reassure
them?
> that Lisp's macros push Lisp closer to
> that hypothetical anything-goes language than is healthy. Maybe that's a
> problem of perception rather than a
André Thieme wrote:
> Ken Tilton schrieb:
>
>>
>>
>> André Thieme wrote:
>>
>>> Ken Tilton schrieb:
>>>
>>>> The last time we went thru this a Pythonista finally said, Oh, I get
>>>> it. These five lines of code I have to
André Thieme wrote:
> Ken Tilton schrieb:
>
>> The last time we went thru this a Pythonista finally said, Oh, I get
>> it. These five lines of code I have to write all the time (two setup,
>> one func call, two cleanup) can be collapsed into one or two. The
>>
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>yeah, I think it is. Folks don't vary that much. If every Lisp
>>programmer also reports parens disappearing at about thirty days, any
>>given non-Lispnik can pretty much bet on the same exp
Eric Pederson wrote:
>>>"No programmer who learned Lisp ever gave up before he learned Lisp."That
>>>would be the obvious retort, but my observation was empirical, so I
>>
>>am afraid you need numbers, not word games.
>>
>>You seem awfully hostile, by the way. Won't that make it harder to
>>cond
mystilleef wrote:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
>
>>Are any of these not subjective?
>
>
> Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder.
>
>
>>Lisp is much more than a functional language.
>
>
> Maybe so. But I've only ever appreciated its functional aspects. I
> wouldn't choose Lisp or its derivative
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Kirk Sluder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "mystilleef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1). More and better mature standard libraries (Languages don't matter,
>>>libraries do).
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Lisp Macros:
>>>
>>>I think
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Some languages are too expressive.
:)
> Look, all snarkiness aside, it just isn't true that "stuff like this is
> impossible in other languages". If Wolfram Fenske had said "stuff like
> this isn't easy in many other languages" he would have been right.
Remember, Lisp
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> But Lisp's syntax is so unlike most written natural languages that that it
> is a whole different story. Yes, the human brain is amazingly flexible,
> and people can learn extremely complex syntax and grammars (especially if
> they start young enough) so I'm not surpr
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>Note also that after any amount of dicing I simply hit a magic key
>>combo and the editor reindents everything. In a sense, Lisp is the
>>language that handles indentation best.
>
>
> Erm ... because t
Alex Mizrahi wrote:
> (message (Hello 'Ken)
> (you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:26:02 -0500))
> (
>
> KT> keep the Pythonistas from straying. But you have an excuse: Lispniks
> KT> always /talk/ about macros giving us the ability to create a DSL. But
> KT> no one does. :)
>
> certainly
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:29:56 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>
>>David Lees wrote:
>
>
>>Those raving about
>>Lisp are quite accomplished at all those other languages, and know about
>> what they are talking.
>
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
>
>
>>if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
>>as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
>>the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like thi
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:02:59 +0200, Alex Mizrahi wrote:
>
>
>>you have an expression 3 + 4 which yields 7.
>>you have an expression 4 * 1 which yields 4.
>>if you paste 3 + 4 in place of 1, you'll have 4 * 3 + 4 = 16. as we know, *
>>is commutative, but 3 + 4 * 4 = 19.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
>
>
>>if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
>>as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
>>the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like thi
Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> Do you know the Paul Graham piece "Beating the Averages"? It's at:
>
>http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
>
> The error in it is that Lisp is really just another Blub.
>
> http://weblog.raganwald.com/2006/10/are-we-blub-programmers.html
>
There we find: "But whe
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> It is a good thing that not every
> hare-brained idea that some random programmer comes up with can be
> implemented as part of the core language.
Well, that's the FUD/strawman, but nothing more. Just a hobgoblin to
keep the Pythonistas from straying. But you have an e
tmh wrote:
> Time for some more wine.
...and then just cut and paste the snipped bit into:
http://wiki.alu.org/The_Road_to_Lisp_Survey
...if you are not there already. The survey questions are optional and
what you wrote is perfect as is. Tough call on what goes in:
http://wiki.alu
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:52:33 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Aahz wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Mark Tarver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:50:41 -0800, George Sakkis wrote:
>
>
>>André Thieme wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On the other hand can I see difficulties in adding macros to Python,
>>>or inventing a new object system, or adding new keywords without
>>>changing the sources of Python itself.
David Lees wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too...
>>
>> Mark Tarver wrote:
>>
>>> How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
>>> think that one has over the other?
>>
>>
>> (Common) Lisp is the only industrial st
George Sakkis wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too...
>>
>>Mark Tarver wrote:
>>
>>>How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
>>>think that one has over the other?
>>
>>(Common) Lisp is the only industrial strengt
Aahz wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mark Tarver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I'm looking at Python and I see that the syntax would appeal to a
>>newbie. Its clearer than ML which is a mess syntactically. But I
>>don't see where the action is in Python. Not yet anyway. Lisp syn
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> Alex Mizrahi wrote:
>
>>(message (Hello 'Bjoern)
>
>
>>> BS> Can you give an example? I cannot imagine how homogenity
>>> always BS> results in easiness.
>
>
>
>>homogenity means that i can cut any expression and paste in any
>>other expression, and as long as
Mark Tarver wrote:
> How do you compare Python to Lisp?
Lisp programmers are smarter and better looking. And better programmers.
Not sure if that is what you were after, though.
> What specific advantages do you
> think that one has over the other?
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=e
Xah Lee wrote:
> Logo LISP
>
> Xah Lee, 2006-12
>
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> «Small problem. You forget that Ron Garret wants us to change the
> name of Common Lisp as the sure-fire way to make it more popular (well,
> hang on, he says it is necessary, not suff
alex23 wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
>
>>No personal offense intended, but human animal's history is what? 3000
>>years at least in recorded history? And, all you can think of is what,
>>the view points of a fraction of your personal life span?
>
>
> Thank god evolution spat you out to lead us all t
Xah Lee wrote:
>
> • What Languages to Hate, Xah Lee, 2002
> http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/language_to_hate.html
Nonsense. This is technology, not religion. Technologists in fact have a
responsibility to identify and use the best tools available.
Xah, you are getting soft in your o
Luis M. González wrote:
> Alok wrote:
>
>>While posting a comment on http://www.reddit.com I got an error page
>>with the following curious statement on it.
>>
>>"reddit broke (sorry)"
>>"looks like we shouldn't have stopped using lisp..."
>>
>>See screenshot at
>>http://photos1.blogger.com/blog
The royal We has just learned that His Kennyness will be honoring the
boozehounds of LispNYC with His Presence tonight (deets below).
He will come bearing Celtk and news of PyCells, though the top billing
tonight goes to SoC student Extraordinaire Samantha Kleinberg.
kenzo
> Please join us for
Joe Marshall wrote:
> Xah Lee wrote:
>
>>in March, i posted a essay "What is Expressiveness in a Computer
>>Language", archived at:
>>http://xahlee.org/perl-python/what_is_expresiveness.html
>>
>>I was informed then that there is a academic paper written on this
>>subject.
>>
>>On the Expressive
Ben Bullock wrote:
> "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> If you believe this lobbying to my webhosting provider is unjust,
>> please write to my web hosting provider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Why don't you just change your provider? It would take less ti
Tim N. van der Leeuw wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>I agree there are limits to you right to free speech, but I believe Xah
>>Lee is not crossing
>>any boundaries. If he starts taking over newspapers and TV stations be
>>sure to notify me,
>>I might revise my position.
>>Immanuel
>
>
>
Lasse Rasinen wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>If you want to insist on how perfect your code is, please go find
>>ltktest-cells-inside.lisp in the source you downloaded and read the long
>>comment detailing the requirements I have identi
Ben wrote:
> This kind of discussions between two groups of people,
> neither of who know the other person's language very well just wind me
> up something chronic!
I must say, it is pretty funny how a flamewar turned into a pretty
interesting SoC project.
> Anything that makes programming mor
Lasse Rasinen wrote:
> [I trimmed some of the newsgroups away; this mostly concerns Python and Lisp]
>
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Lasse Rasinen wrote:
>>
>>>Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>&g
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Ben wrote:
>
>>
>> Nothing you have described sounds that complicated, and you never come
>> up with concrete objections to other peoples code (apart that it took
>> 10 years to write in Lisp, so it must be really hard)
>
Ben wrote:
>
> Nothing you have described sounds that complicated, and you never come
> up with concrete objections to other peoples code (apart that it took
> 10 years to write in Lisp, so it must be really hard)
Oh, now I have to spend an hour dissecting any code you people toss-off
that doe
Lasse Rasinen wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>>if any concepts have survived to the Python version. Since Python's object
>>>model is sufficiently different, the system is based on rules being
>>>defined per-class...
>>
Lasse Rasinen wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>ps. flaming aside, PyCells really would be amazingly good for Python. And
>>so Google. (Now your job is on the line. ) k
>
>
> Here's something I wrote this week, mostly as a menta
Everything else responded to separately, but...
> I'd like to see a demonstration that using the same binding syntax for special
> and lexical variables buys you something apart from bugs.
Buys me something? Why do I have to sell simplicity, transparency, and
clean syntax on c.l.python?
kenny
implementation convenience hack
> since it was implemented with a very efficient shallow binding cell.
> That Common Lisp adapted Scheme's lexical bindings was considered a
> big sign of CL's couthness. So I'm a little confused about what Ken
> Tilton is getting at.
Paul, the
Alexander Schmolck wrote:
> Duane Rettig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Alexander Schmolck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In Common Lisp we would hav
Alexander Schmolck wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>In Common Lisp we would have:
>>
>>(defvar *x*) ;; makes it special
>>(setf *x* 1)
>>(print *x*) ;;-> 1
>>(let ((*x* 2))
>> (print *x*))
Alexander Schmolck wrote:
> jayessay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>"Michele Simionato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>I was interested in a proof of concept, to show that Python can
>>>emulate Lisp special variables with no big effort.
>>
>>OK, but the sort of "proof of concept" given
Michele Simionato wrote:
> jayessay wrote:
>
>>I was saying that you are mistaken in that pep-0343 could be used to
>>implement dynamically scoped variables. That stands.
>
>
> Proof by counter example:
>
> from __future__ import with_statement
> import threading
>
> special = threading.loc
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Stefan Nobis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
>>
>>
>>>if anonymous functions are available, they're used in even more
>>>cases where naming would help
>>
>>Yes, you're right. But don't stop here. What about expressions? Many
>>pe
Ketil Malde wrote:
>
> Sometimes the best documentation is the code itself. Sometimes the
> best name for a function is the code itself.
Absolutely. When I take over someone else's code I begin by deleting all
the comments. Then I read the code. If a variable or function name makes
no sense
Chris F Clark wrote:
> David C Ullrich asked:
>
>>Q: How do we ensure there are no loops in the dependencies?
>>
>>Do we actually run the whole graph through some algorithm
>>to verify there are no loops?
>
>
> The question you are asking is the dependency graph a "directed
> acyclic graph" (c
[Sorry, I missed this one originally.]
David C. Ullrich wrote:
> On Tue, 09 May 2006 05:35:47 -0500, David C. Ullrich
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:46:57 -0400, Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>
Boris Borcic wrote:
> Bill Atkins wrote:
>
>>
>> It's interesting how much people who don't have macros like to put
>> them down and treat them as some arcane art that are too "*insane*"ly
>> powerful to be used well.
>>
>> They're actually very straightforward and can often (shock of shocks!)
>
Boris Borcic wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> "Now if you are like most people, you think that means X. It does not."
>
>
> As far as natural language and understanding are concerned, "to mean"
> means conformity to what most people understand, H
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
