Re: Storing functions in the database
Hi Joh-Tob, > Reading the full 'doc helps. The solution was 'Any. > > : (rel body (+Any +Need)) > -> +Function Yes, almost. The +Need is wrong though, it is a prefix class and is at least not clean here. Also, as I always keep saying, be careful with +Need. It makes usually only sense for values which are initialized by the system at object-creation time. But if you absolutely want it, use (+Need +Any). ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: TC -> Loop Transformation?
Hi Christopher, Congratulations on the new baby. You'll have lots of late nights to code now...or maybe not. This may give some added insight into what you are trying to accomplish... https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Jump_anywhere#PicoLisp The code example there was worth some time to study for me, especially in consideration of scoping. It may even have been my lisp enlightenment moment (= code data). /Lindsay >
Unclear licensing
Hello list. I'm having a lot of fun with picolisp, doing practice problems and working with different codes. One concern I have though is that most of the files in the Picolisp 16.12 release do not have proper license labeling. For legal safety and to avoid confusion, we need to have at least *every source code* file in the release labeled at the top of the file with the applicable license. This is especially important since you have some files in the release that are under different licenses (e.g., some elisp under GPL-2); also you have javascript files that are served by some of your libraries and, when served, end up looking like they have no license at all (if someone inspects the javascript code) when (presumably) the javascript also is freely licensed. Is that already something on your TODO list? I am willing to help with this... I just need to know if you want me to create a patch against the stable version 16.12, or some other release. Of course, the danger with me being involved is you might at some point claim I've misrepresented your licensing intentions. -- https://qlfiles.net -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: TC -> Loop Transformation?
Hi, sorry about the delayed response — just had a new baby and have been in the hospital for a few days. What I am trying to accomplish is be able to represent algorithms in a recursive format (which is often what comes naturally to me and seems cleaner and easier to understand) without the stack penalty. This is why TCO is baked into Scheme and CL, as the lisp people usually have this mindset. If you don't, that is fine and probably not worth an extended discussion. In my Haskell days, I represented most algs in some recursive format, though I found out there was usually some higher level abstraction available encapsulating the recursion. The "macro" I wrote seems to accomplish what I want, though I'm thinking maybe there are a few things in the macro code itself that could be improved. E.g., it seems a little weird throwing an exception, but I wasn't sure how else to do a non-local jump. And there is potential also for variable name collisions between the macro variables and the function that is passed in. On 03/04/2017 11:46 PM, Alexander Burger wrote: > Hi Christopher, > > thanks for sharing these ideas! > > However I'm a bit clueless about what you want to achieve. > >> Hi, I while ago I asked how I might somehow represent a loop as a a tail >> call recursion, so as to give me the pattern I like without the call >> penalties. > > Isn't it a lot easier to write a 'while', 'for' or 'do' loop then? > > ♪♫ Alex > -- https://qlfiles.net -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: Storing functions in the database
Problem solved.
Reading the full 'doc helps. The solution was 'Any.
: (pool "type.db")
-> T
: (class +Function +Entity)
-> +Function
: (rel name (+Idx +String))
-> +Function
: (rel body (+Any +Need))
-> +Function
: (new! '(+Function) 'name "fakultät" 'body '((N) (apply '* (range 1 N
-> {2}
: (new! '(+Function) 'name "sum2" 'body '((N X) (+ N X )))
-> {5}
: (new! '(+Function) 'name "1-to-N-sum" 'body '((N) (/ (* N (inc N)) 2)))
-> {6}
: (select +Function)
{6} (+Function)
name "1-to-N-sum"
body ((N) (/ (* N (inc N)) 2))
{2} (+Function)
name "fakultät"
body ((N) (apply '* (range 1 N)))
{5} (+Function)
name "sum2"
body ((N X) (+ N X))
2017-03-10 22:46 GMT+01:00 Joh-Tob Schäg :
> Hello,
>
> i try to store a function is a database. Can somebody spot what i am doing
> wrong?
>
> (pool "types.db") #empty
> : (class +Function +Entity)
> -> +Function
> : (rel name (+Idx +String))
> -> +Function
> : (rel body (+Bag +Bag +Need))
> -> +Function
> ? (select +Function)
> {5} (+Function)
>name "1-to-N-sum"
>
> {2} (+Function)
>name "fakultät"
>
> {6} (+Function)
>name "sum2"
>
> -> NIL
> ? (get {6} 'body)
> -> NIL
> ? (get {2} 'body)
> -> NIL
> ? (get {2} body)
> -> NIL
> ? (request '(+Function) 'body '((N X) (+ N X ))) #New Function with this
> body is created because nothing found
> -> {13}
> ? (show {13})
> -> (+Function)
> ? (request '(+Function) 'body '((N X) (+ N X ))) #New Function with this
> body is created again!
> -> {14}
>
>
>
>
>
>
Storing functions in the database
Hello,
i try to store a function is a database. Can somebody spot what i am doing
wrong?
(pool "types.db") #empty
: (class +Function +Entity)
-> +Function
: (rel name (+Idx +String))
-> +Function
: (rel body (+Bag +Bag +Need))
-> +Function
? (select +Function)
{5} (+Function)
name "1-to-N-sum"
{2} (+Function)
name "fakultät"
{6} (+Function)
name "sum2"
-> NIL
? (get {6} 'body)
-> NIL
? (get {2} 'body)
-> NIL
? (get {2} body)
-> NIL
? (request '(+Function) 'body '((N X) (+ N X ))) #New Function with this
body is created because nothing found
-> {13}
? (show {13})
-> (+Function)
? (request '(+Function) 'body '((N X) (+ N X ))) #New Function with this
body is created again!
-> {14}
Re: future?
> 10 mars 2017 kl. 01:17 skrev : > > Thanks for your comments and insights, Jakob. > I just want to shortly assure you that I really liked your emails and your > participation. Thanks. > Sidenote: > Before GitHub, sourceforge.net was the singular main hoster for FOSS > sourcecode. > They lost their status when they bundled the downloads with adware (and > malware). Something like that can happen. But I stand by my point - github and it's social network is unique. > > BitKeeper vs. Linux (the reason we have git now). So thanks to Bitkeeper we could push the state of the art away from CVS. Great. > > GitHub: > On 2017-03-01 GitHub introduced ... > Basically, when uploading FOSS-licensed content to GitHub, the uploader > automatically grants GitHub a special license, so actually a case of > dual-licensing. > The problem now is, that when the content is copyrighted by other authors > beside the uploader, > then the uploader cannot (in usual cases) actually grant this license legally > to GitHub, as most FOSS-licenses forbid sublicensing and/or removal of the > original attributions. > Just ... not accurate. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13767975 > I don't believe GitHub will take big damage because of this, especially as > there is no serious contender on the rise. Exactly there's none. > But it's surely a sign that GitHub is not a singularity from the usual > development of such things. > It's not an idealistic group of nerds anymore, but a big company (e.g. lookup > the "github meritocracy" drama). I never said nor implied such a thing. I just observe that github is the largest community of software developers in the history of the Universe. > For the other points mentioned by you and others about picolisp: > Just do it. PicoLisp is MIT-licensed. Action speaks louder than words. Put up or shut up? Of course you are right. About me. Because I know where to find everything picolisp related. But I argue (maybe incorrectly) that there can be other people in a kind of Hitchikers guide to the Galaxy situation - Picolisp is behind the leopard etc... But all this is beside the point for PicoLisp, we know now that it won't come to github. I just wanted to defend my own viewpoint, I didn't like how I was understood. > This! > I'm on it. Speaking of, anybody tried to compile emu pico in emscripten? -- Jakob
Re: future?
[reply to beneroth regarding git-hosting so a bit off-topic for picolisp, just to quickly say...] On 10 March 2017 at 02:17, wrote: > ..[snip].. > GitHub: > On 2017-03-01 GitHub introduced new Terms of Service (which you > automatically accept by continueing to use their service) > ..[snip].. > Some projects already moved away from GitHub because of this. > > https://www.mirbsd.org/permalinks/wlog-10_e20170301-tg.htm > http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/removing_everything_from_github/ ..many thanks for pointing this out (the new TOS seems to have gone live 9 days ago). This sort of thing is why there was such a long-winded debate on debian-devel mailing-list about migrating to a git platform - but not to github, bitbucket, etc - not even to gitlab.com (uses non-free enterprise-gitlab). I'd always felt mixed about hosting F/LOSS on github (initially done as a shortcut around the time/cost of setting up self-hosting), so I stealth-migrated my repos to a few other platforms last year and then decided my real move would be to self-hosted gogs, and in light of this news I'll push that schedule rather than grokking github-legalese, so thanks. From what Thorsten says in one of those links, it seems there's only an issue for a github-hosted repo when commits are made after 1 March, which gives a little wiggle-room for now, and luckily git makes migration super-easy. -- Rowan Thorpe "A riot is the language of the unheard." - Dr. Martin Luther King "There is a great difference between worry and concern. A worried person sees a problem, and a concerned person solves a problem." - Harold Stephens "Ignorance requires no apologies when it presents questions rather than assertions." - Michael Sierchio (OpenSSL mailing list) "What we need more than an end to wars is an end to the beginning of all wars." - Franklin Roosevelt -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Re: future?
clarification about the GitHub legalese: My point is not "do not use github" but "github is not a singularity, no exception to the fact that they might close or suddenly turn into a bad actor". I personally don't believe that this is the point yet nor that their ToS change was made with bad intentions. My current view agrees with this HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13770443 Basically, GitHub moves the legal responsibility from itself to the uploader. There is no clear incompatibility with FOSS-licenses at the moment. But such incompatibilities are not ruled out completely or for future GitHub service changes. A minority (afaik) weights the risks so high that they chose not to use GitHub anymore. Me personally, I find it very bad how they introduced this ToS-change, and secondly why should the move the legal risks to mostly private persons and non-profit FOSS-projects? Why don't they keep the legal risk on GitHub, when they have the money and lawyers to check, and secondly when that legal risk is probably only arising when they would introduce bigger changes in how GitHub services work? That would be a service for the FOSS-people, not just great technical infrastructure but also legal protection from risks that solely come from how GitHub behaves. /beneroth
