Alexander Schmolck wrote:
> [trimmed groups]
>
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>yes, but do not feel bad, everyone gets confused by the /analogy/ to
>>spreadsheets into thinking Cells /is/ a spreadsheet. In fact, for a brief
>>period I
Adam Jones wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>Alexander Schmolck wrote:
>>
>>>[trimmed groups]
>>>
>>>Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>yes, but do not feel bad, everyone gets confused b
David C. Ullrich wrote:
> On Sun, 07 May 2006 10:36:00 -0400, Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>[...]
>>
>>Your spreadsheet does not have slots ruled by functions, it has one slot
>>for a dictionary where you store names and values/
[Sorry, i was just reading comp.lang.lisp, missed the following till
someone mentioned it in email. k]
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Carl Friedrich Bolz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>
>>>an extension that allows the programmer to specify how the value of
>>>some slot (Lisp lingo for "member vari
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
> I just keep what I call a "datapulse ID", sequentially growing from
> zero, in a global variable. Each ruled Cell keeps track of its memoized
> value, datapulse stamp, and whether it in fact changed value in reaching
> its current datapuls
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>No, you do not want on-change handlers propagating data to other
>>slots, though that is a sound albeit primitive way of improving
>>self-consistency of data in big apps. The productivity
David C. Ullrich wrote:
> On 08 May 2006 12:53:09 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas
> F. Burdick) wrote:
>
>
>>Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>No, you do not want on-change handlers propagating data to other
>>>slots, th
Pisin Bootvong wrote:
> Joe Marshall wrote:
>
>>Alex Martelli wrote:
>>Most languages allow `unnamed numbers'. The `VAT_MULTIPLIER' argument
>>is a
>>strawman. Would you want to have to use a special syntax to name the
>>increment
>>in loop?
>>
>> defnumber zero 0
>> defnumber one { successor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>Python has a weak lambda, statements do not always
>>return values, it does not have macros, and I do not know if it has
>>special variables.
>
>
> I am pretty much ignorant of Common Lisp, but I have the im
sross wrote:
>>I do wonder what would happen to Cells if I ever want to support
>>multiple threads. Or in a parallel processing environment.
>
>
> AFAIK It should be fine.
> In LW, SBCL and ACL all bindings of dynamic variables are thread-local.
>
Ah, I was guilty of making an unspoken segue:
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
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!)
>
[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:
>>[...]
>>
>
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
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
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
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
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
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:
> Duane Rettig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Alexander Schmolck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In Common Lisp we would hav
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
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
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
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...
>>
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
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)
>
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
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:
> 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
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
>
>
>
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
101 - 131 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
