Le vendredi 9 août 2013, Sean Corfield a écrit :
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Mark Engelberg
mark.engelb...@gmail.comjavascript:;
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
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com 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 --
I'll bet Laurent means paredit-convolute-sexpr :-)
Ambrose
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Laurent PETIT laurent.pe...@gmail.com
wrote:
What does it do? (first time I encounter it)
DrRacket? It's the standard IDE
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
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
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 lspec...@hampshire.edu wrote:
On Aug 7, 2013, at 2:06 PM, Norman Richards wrote:
Structural editing, like
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
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
Mark Engelberg mark.engelb...@gmail.com 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
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 code
Meikel Brandmeyer (kotarak) m...@kotka.de 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
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 person.
Tassilo Horn t...@gnu.org 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.
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,
Lee Spector lspec...@hampshire.edu 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
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 know
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 the wrong
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
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
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
On 8 Aug 2013, at 16:29, Tim Daly d...@axiom-developer.org 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
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 Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Lee Spector lspec...@hampshire.edu 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
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Norman Richards o...@nostacktrace.comwrote:
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
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Mark Engelberg mark.engelb...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Sean Corfield seancorfi...@gmail.comwrote:
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
On Aug 8, 2013, at 5:44 AM, Lee Spector lspec...@hampshire.edu 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
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
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
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 bracket.
Clojure IDE feature shld be for completing
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Paul L. Snyder p...@pataprogramming.comwrote:
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
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
