Re: Not R5RS, but GUILE
Thinking about these ideas i was convinced to base my parser on sisc, which enables defining 1+. Bert ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Not R5RS, but GUILE
> > The 1+ function exists is many lisp idioms of old, so this is > > where it comes from. +1 cannot be an identifier: it is the number > > 1. > > how about i+ ? Or i++? Most programmers who use Lisp or Scheme are fluent in C also... Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Not R5RS, but GUILE
Nicolas Sceaux wrote: > Le 18 déc. 08 à 15:55, Han-Wen Nienhuys a écrit : > > > I guess we'll have to name it inc or something. Can you > > talk to the GUILE guys about this to get some background? > > The 1+ function exists is many lisp idioms of old, so this > is where it comes from. +1 cannot be an identifier: it is > the number 1. how about i+ ? - Mark ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Not R5RS, but GUILE
Le 18 déc. 08 à 15:55, Han-Wen Nienhuys a écrit : I guess we'll have to name it inc or something. Can you talk to the GUILE guys about this to get some background? The 1+ function exists is many lisp idioms of old, so this is where it comes from. +1 cannot be an identifier: it is the number 1. nicolas ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Not R5RS, but GUILE
On 12/18/08 7:55 AM, "Han-Wen Nienhuys" wrote: > I guess we'll have to name it inc or something. Can you talk to the > GUILE guys about this to get some background? > > thanks! Have we done any tests to find out how much a time difference is made using 1+ instead of + 1 ? My guess is that it is slightly more efficient, but that the time difference in running LilyPond is insignificant. Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Not R5RS, but GUILE
I guess we'll have to name it inc or something. Can you talk to the GUILE guys about this to get some background? thanks! On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: > Unfortunately +1 is neither an R5RS identifier. > > identifier: (letter|special_initial) subsequent* | + | - | ... > special_initial: ! | $ | % | & | * | / | : | < | = | > | ? | ^ | _ | ~ > > "In general, a sequence of letters, digits, and "extended alphabetic > characters" is an identifier when it begins with a character that cannot > begin a representation of a number object. In addition, +, -, and ... are > identifiers" > > > > Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > Can you also voice this concern on the guile devel list? > > I think the reason the function exists is that is slightly more > efficient. Feel free to define a +1 function and change lily to use > it. > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) > wrote: > > > Hi, > > I found that many places you use the procedure 1+. Besides that how > ridiculous I think is to have a function that spares a "space" (1+ instead > of (+ 1, the real concern is that it doesn't conform to R5RS. R5RS doesn't > allow identifiers to start with a number. > I know that GUILE allows it (I wonder why). > But my Scheme parser (Julie) is stricter then Guile in this sense, so it > won't be able to parse LilyPond-supported SCM files. I want to parse them. > Could you change the (1+ calls to (+ 1? > > It's just a question about your opinion. > > Bert > > > > ___ > lilypond-devel mailing list > lilypond-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel > > > > > -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Not R5RS, but GUILE
Unfortunately +1 is neither an R5RS identifier. identifier: (letter|special_initial) subsequent* | + | - | ... special_initial: ! | $ | % | & | * | / | : | < | = | > | ? | ^ | _ | ~ "In general, a sequence of letters, digits, and “extended alphabetic characters” is an identifier when it begins with a character that cannot begin a representation of a number object. In addition, +, -, and ... are identifiers" Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: Can you also voice this concern on the guile devel list? I think the reason the function exists is that is slightly more efficient. Feel free to define a +1 function and change lily to use it. On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: Hi, I found that many places you use the procedure 1+. Besides that how ridiculous I think is to have a function that spares a "space" (1+ instead of (+ 1, the real concern is that it doesn't conform to R5RS. R5RS doesn't allow identifiers to start with a number. I know that GUILE allows it (I wonder why). But my Scheme parser (Julie) is stricter then Guile in this sense, so it won't be able to parse LilyPond-supported SCM files. I want to parse them. Could you change the (1+ calls to (+ 1? It's just a question about your opinion. Bert ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Not R5RS, but GUILE
Can you also voice this concern on the guile devel list? I think the reason the function exists is that is slightly more efficient. Feel free to define a +1 function and change lily to use it. On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) wrote: > Hi, > > I found that many places you use the procedure 1+. Besides that how > ridiculous I think is to have a function that spares a "space" (1+ instead > of (+ 1, the real concern is that it doesn't conform to R5RS. R5RS doesn't > allow identifiers to start with a number. > I know that GUILE allows it (I wonder why). > But my Scheme parser (Julie) is stricter then Guile in this sense, so it > won't be able to parse LilyPond-supported SCM files. I want to parse them. > Could you change the (1+ calls to (+ 1? > > It's just a question about your opinion. > > Bert > > > > ___ > lilypond-devel mailing list > lilypond-devel@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel > -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Not R5RS, but GUILE
> I found that many places you use the procedure 1+. Besides that how > ridiculous I think is to have a function that spares a "space" (1+ > instead of (+ 1, the real concern is that it doesn't conform to > R5RS. R5RS doesn't allow identifiers to start with a number. I know > that GUILE allows it (I wonder why). I don't mind such a change but the ideal solution would be to completely disallow identifiers which start with a number. Is this possible? Werner ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Not R5RS, but GUILE
Hi, I found that many places you use the procedure 1+. Besides that how ridiculous I think is to have a function that spares a "space" (1+ instead of (+ 1, the real concern is that it doesn't conform to R5RS. R5RS doesn't allow identifiers to start with a number. I know that GUILE allows it (I wonder why). But my Scheme parser (Julie) is stricter then Guile in this sense, so it won't be able to parse LilyPond-supported SCM files. I want to parse them. Could you change the (1+ calls to (+ 1? It's just a question about your opinion. Bert ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
