Rich Hickey schreef:
> I'm not sure Clojure has more built-in reader constructs than Common
> Lisp, which has reader syntax for vectors, arrays, pathnames, dotted
> pairs, bitvectors, read-time evaluation, labels, label references,
> read-time conditionals, many kinds of numbers, functions, balanc
On Dec 12, 4:13 pm, Joost 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 clojure.lang.Li
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
On Dec 11, 6:19 pm, Rich Hickey 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 (first x)))
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Mark Volkmann
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 stress that the Clojure's
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Randall R Schulz 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 all the
>>
On Dec 12, 1:35 am, Mon Key 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 am beginning to
On Dec 11, 3:58 pm, Randall R Schulz 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 2008 06
> 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 s
> 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 s
On Thursday 11 December 2008 15:24, Dave Griffith wrote:
> ...
> On the downside, you can't tell until runtime whether a given function
> call has an acceptable arity, which pretty much any other popular
> language can check at edit-time.
Given that function definitions are closed, it's eminentl
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
On Dec 11, 5:03 pm, Daniel Eklund 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
--- 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 (
On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:50, Paul Barry wrote:
> On Dec 11, 4:44 pm, Randall R Schulz 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?
Randall,
Well said, and I need to find a place to make this explanation in the
book prior to chapter 7. :-)
Stuart
> 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:
>>
>> "Cloj
> 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, su
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 2008 06:32, evins.mi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Subject: Re: In core stru
On Dec 11, 4:44 pm, Randall R Schulz 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?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You recei
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 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 makes this st
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 for
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. .
22 matches
Mail list logo
