On Dec 11, 3:58 pm, Randall R Schulz rsch...@sonic.net wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:47, Sean Spencer wrote:
That was one of the best explanations of code as data I've ever read.
Kudos!
Thanks. You forced me to look up the reference to which I alluded:
On Thursday 11 December
On Dec 12, 1:35 am, Mon Key s...@derbycityprints.com wrote:
Clojure does not allow for programmer-defined
reader macros (unlike other lisps).
I know this has been touched upon last Spring - and Stu Halloway refs
at least one discussion of this in his book.
From a practical standpoint I
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Randall R Schulz rsch...@sonic.net wrote:
Punctuation is not syntax.
Clojure goes on to add a lot of syntax. The literal syntax for
vectors [], maps {}, sets #{}, functions #(), keywords :, etc. are
all syntax, not possible with macros, and then there are
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Mark Volkmann
r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com wrote:
I really have trouble understanding the idea that punctuation and
syntactic sugar shouldn't be considered syntax.
S-Expressions and its counterparts are technically a syntax. I guess
the distinction was made to
On Dec 11, 6:19 pm, Rich Hickey richhic...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the critical point is that the text-based representation of code
is completely secondary:
(def x (list (list (symbol fn) (vector) Hello World)))
(class (second (first x)))
- clojure.lang.PersistentVector
(class (first
Paul Barry schreef:
Ok, so it's fair to say the Clojure Reader has syntax. I don't see
how this is fundamentally different than how Ruby works, for example:
http://www.igvita.com/2008/12/11/ruby-ast-for-fun-and-profit/
The clojure.lang.LispReader parses an input stream of text into a Java
On Dec 12, 4:13 pm, Joost jo...@zeekat.nl wrote:
Paul Barry schreef:
Ok, so it's fair to say the Clojure Reader has syntax. I don't see
how this is fundamentally different than how Ruby works, for example:
http://www.igvita.com/2008/12/11/ruby-ast-for-fun-and-profit/
The
I've been reading the latest chapter from Stuart's book, Chapter 7:
Macros, and he makes this statement:
Clojure has no special syntax for code. Code is simply Clojure data.
This is true for normal functions, but also for special forms and
macros. Consider a language with syntax, such as Java.
On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:37, Paul Barry wrote:
I've been reading the latest chapter from Stuart's book, Chapter 7:
Macros, and he makes this statement:
Clojure has no special syntax for code. Code is simply Clojure data.
This is true for normal functions, but also for special forms
That was one of the best explanations of code as data I've ever read.
Kudos!
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Randall R Schulz rsch...@sonic.net wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:37, Paul Barry wrote:
I've been reading the latest chapter from Stuart's book, Chapter 7:
Macros, and he
On Dec 11, 4:44 pm, Randall R Schulz rsch...@sonic.net wrote:
All these things are syntactic sugar. Shorthand ways to write things
that have vanilla S-Expression counterparts. Again, I would not call
them syntax.
syntactic sugar is not syntax?
--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Paul Barry wrote:
syntactic sugar is not syntax?
I think that depends on which particular nits are being picked.
Is it strictly true that Clojure has no syntax? Meh--probably not.
(defun foo [bar] ...) has more unique characters than (defun foo (bar) ...) or
(define
My view is that Lisps have very a simple syntax, achieved at the cost
of moving a fair amount of error checking until runtime. If you
ignore reader macros, you can tell if a Clojure expression is well-
formed by just keeping a count of open parentheses, which is about the
least amount of state
Clojure does not allow for programmer-defined
reader macros (unlike other lisps).
I know this has been touched upon last Spring - and Stu Halloway refs
at least one discussion of this in his book.
From a practical standpoint I am beginning to understand more why the
choice was made to not
Clojure does not allow for programmer-defined
reader macros (unlike other lisps).
I know this has been touched upon last Spring - and Stu Halloway refs
at least one discussion of this in his book.
From a practical standpoint I am beginning to understand more why the
choice was made to not
15 matches
Mail list logo
