Suppose I start out writing this:
(if some-expr
(let [x (something y)]
(process x))
(deal-with ...))
and I get to the ... and realize I need x in that expression as well.
I just place my cursor before (process x) and do M-x conv RET and I
get this code:
(let [x (something y)]
(if some-
Le vendredi 9 août 2013, Sean Corfield a écrit :
> Ah, yes... it turns this ( | represents the cursor ):
>
> (f a b (g c d |e f))
>
> into this:
>
> (g c d (f a b e f))
>
> I find I use it most often when moving `let` forms around, but also
> for other constructs occasionally.
Sorry, maybe it's
Ah, yes... it turns this ( | represents the cursor ):
(f a b (g c d |e f))
into this:
(g c d (f a b e f))
I find I use it most often when moving `let` forms around, but also
for other constructs occasionally.
Sean
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Ambrose Bonnaire-Sergeant
wrote:
> I'll bet La
I'll bet Laurent means paredit-convolute-sexpr :-)
Ambrose
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Laurent PETIT
> wrote:
> > What does it do? (first time I encounter it)
>
> DrRacket? It's the "standard" IDE for the Racket language (and all of
>
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> What does it do? (first time I encounter it)
DrRacket? It's the "standard" IDE for the Racket language (and all of
its teaching subsets etc).
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
World Singles, LLC
Le vendredi 9 août 2013, Sean Corfield a écrit :
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Mark Engelberg
> >
> wrote:
> > Getting back to the point of the original post, one of the nice features
> of
> > DrRacket is that when you type `]`, it automatically puts either ']' or
> ')'
>
> Having used DrRack
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
> One should definitely try it to see if it works for him, but saying it is a
> panacea
> for balancing parens/braces is a bit for stretch as other tools solve this
> problem
> as well.
It's important to draw the distinction between "parent
On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:44 AM, Lee Spector wrote:
> Agreed. But good brace/paren *matching* (highlighting the mate and/or
> unmatched brackets) solves this problem without all the downsides (IMHO) of
> paredit.
I too had a similar experience. Often when writing code I don't even produce
it in
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
> Yes, paredit is a bit of a pain to get used to at first, but it really
> does remove a whole slew of issues around parentheses in code, and it
> really does make you a lot more productive, especially once you learn
> the structural editing co
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Mark Engelberg wrote:
> Getting back to the point of the original post, one of the nice features of
> DrRacket is that when you type `]`, it automatically puts either ']' or ')'
Having used DrRacket quite a bit lately, I do not find its handling of
parens to be par
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Norman Richards wrote:
> I do stand by comment. You are free to disagree. It's so painful to
> watch people (experienced LISPers and newbies alike) manually balancing
> parenthesis and spending inordinate amounts of time to do the simplest
> tasks like pulling an
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Lee Spector wrote:
>
> I was referring to Norman Richard's comment, which is what set me off:
> "Structural editing, like paredit, is really the only sane way to do
> Clojure code. I honestly thing anyone who manually balances parenthesis or
> edits Clojure functi
On Thu, 08 Aug 2013, Sam Aaron wrote:
> Haha, I come back to this list after a good few months of not being able
> to keep up with the volume to find a rant about paredit - priceless!
>
> Seriously though, these things are all personal and as such clearly get
> people's backs up. So for what it's
On 8 Aug 2013, at 16:29, Tim Daly wrote:
>> Find me a person who fluently used paredit that stopped and reverted back to
>> manual parenthesis manipulation.
>
> /me raises my hand.
>
> Structural editing was useful in LispVM (on IBM mainframes) where the
> display was 12 lines by 40 character
> Find me a person who fluently used paredit that stopped and reverted back to
> manual parenthesis manipulation.
/me raises my hand.
Structural editing was useful in LispVM (on IBM mainframes) where the
display was 12 lines by 40 characters. It might also be useful for the
iPad lisping app. If
Haha, I come back to this list after a good few months of not being able to
keep up with the volume to find a rant about paredit - priceless!
Seriously though, these things are all personal and as such clearly get
people's backs up. So for what it's worth, let me throw my thoughts in...
I would
Just for the record:
I've been coding in Lisp for close to 30 years
>
>
make that 20 years in my case and I agree with Lee.
Can't live without C-M-q, TAB, M-left/right, C-M-SPC but paredit is
interfering too much for /my/ taste.
stefan
--
--
You received this message because you are subscr
On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
>>
>> I'm happy to drop this after this message too. I just couldn't let such an
>> unnecessarily insulting email stand without a response
>
> I think he was trying to support you actually. He's saying "it doesn't
> work for you, which means it's
> I can see this as a problem, although, there again new programmers are
> likely to have problems getting parens balanced. I've never taught lisp
> to new programmers, but given the difficult those I have taught Java
> have with brace/paren matching, I guess it's a problem.
>
> It's always hard to
Lee Spector writes:
> On Aug 8, 2013, at 3:34 AM, Robert Stuttaford wrote:
>
>> Lee has a valid point. Lee's point is: let me decide. Put paredit in, but
>> let me turn it off if I want.
>>
>> I agree that paredit is the only sane way for me and for anyone who doesn't
>> have Lee's muscle memo
On Aug 8, 2013, at 3:34 AM, Robert Stuttaford wrote:
> Lee has a valid point. Lee's point is: let me decide. Put paredit in, but let
> me turn it off if I want.
>
> I agree that paredit is the only sane way for me and for anyone who doesn't
> have Lee's muscle memory to overcome. But for Lee,
Tassilo Horn writes:
>> Writing great code would be a much better use of our time than calling
>> other people insane.
>
> I've never called anybody insane. I just wanted to transport that
> paredit and other tools need some time to get used to, but then the
> investment might be worth it.
I di
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, 8. August 2013 10:45:34 UTC+2 schrieb Tassilo Horn:
>
>
> I've never called anybody insane. I just wanted to transport that
> paredit and other tools need some time to get used to, but then the
> investment might be worth it.
>
>
I meant the overall discussion. Not you in pe
"Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak)" writes:
>> now I don't know how people can edit Lisp without it.
>>
> Quite simple: You type an (, you type some more code, you type ). Easy
> as that.
Writing is easy. IMO, paredit (or structural editing in general) shines
when refactoring code.
> Can we stop th
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, 8. August 2013 10:05:28 UTC+2 schrieb Tassilo Horn:
>
> now I don't know how people can edit Lisp without it.
>
>
Quite simple: You type an (, you type some more code, you type ). Easy as
that.
Can we stop this arrogant "smug paredit weenie" discussion now? Writing
great cod
Mark Engelberg writes:
> I've tried paredit several times and dislike it. I found that while
> editing the code, I spent a lot of mental energy trying to figure out
> how to edit the code within the constraints of the
> structure-preserving transformation key combos, which took away from
> my ab
I've tried paredit several times and dislike it. I found that while
editing the code, I spent a lot of mental energy trying to figure out how
to edit the code within the constraints of the structure-preserving
transformation key combos, which took away from my ability to concentrate
on the problem
Lee has a valid point. Lee's point is: let me decide. Put paredit in, but
let me turn it off if I want.
I agree that paredit is the only sane way for me and for anyone who doesn't
have Lee's muscle memory to overcome. But for Lee, paredit is 'doing it
wrong', because he doesn't enjoy it and he
The vast majority of people who have tried paredit prefer using it, your
reaction is very rare. So this is as far from "YMMV" as you can get.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Lee Spector wrote:
>
> On Aug 7, 2013, at 2:06 PM, Norman Richards wrote:
> > Structural editing, like paredit, is really
On Aug 7, 2013, at 2:06 PM, Norman Richards wrote:
> Structural editing, like paredit, is really the only sane way to do Clojure
> code. I honestly thing anyone who manually balances parenthesis or edits
> Clojure functions in a way that doesn't preserve the structural integrity of
> your expr
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Paul L. Snyder wrote:
> If paredit is a hard sell (it was for me, the first three or four times
> that I tried it), realizing that you can break the "balance" when needed
> by
> judicious use of kill and yank may be helpful during the transition to a
> structural
>> On Wed, 07 Aug 2013, Abraham wrote:
>>
>> Any IDE provides the feature found in DrRacket ,that is it auto completes
>> the corresponding
> >
>> [ or ( . by pressing ) . Keep on pressing ) in DrRacket will
>> autocomplete the square or round brack
I don't think there's any IDE that does this out of the box, although I'm
certain that if you're an elisp hacker, you could easily add this to emacs'
clojure mode.
I, too, miss that feature from DrRacket.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure"
Any IDE provides the feature found in DrRacket ,that is it auto completes
the corresponding
[ or ( . by pressing ) . Keep on pressing ) in DrRacket will
autocomplete the square or round bracket.
Clojure IDE feature shld be for completing { , [ , ( ... and so on.
Thanks
A
--
--
You
34 matches
Mail list logo
