On Sun 14 Mar 2021 at 09:34, Alexis wrote:
> My guess is that Tomas is using the latter meaning, and wants
> 'pure' functions that simply return strings, without sending them
> to an output device. The final string to be output would be
> created by combining the return values of multiple funct
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 10:19 PM Alexander Burger
wrote:
> Hi pd,
>
> > They're are not intended to be right implementations, too bad for that
> ;-)
>
> No no, I did not say that :)
>
:) ok but *I* say that, it's really not a code to show, only intended
to show output
> Right. The point is
Hi pd,
> > > : (de pp P (prin "") (run P) (prin "") (pack "" (run P)
> > "") )
> > ...
> > This is a bit problematic, because the body in P is executed twice. Not
> > only is ...
> >(de pp P
> > (prin (pack "" (run P) "")) )
> yes, all my examples in my previous email are bad code, just
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 2:05 PM Alexander Burger
wrote:
>
> Yes. (And strings are always immutable in PicoLisp anyway)
>
this is pretty interesting to be rembered, good for newbies to discover why
it is that way ;-)
> > : (de pp P (prin "") (run P) (prin "") (pack "" (run P)
> "") )
>
> This i
Alexander Burger writes:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 06:48:22PM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
(de (Col . Prg)
(prin "")
(run Prg)
(prin "") )
prin has side-effect.
Nonsense! 'prin' *is* the only and desired effect.
Mm, it seems to me that there might be a mutual misunder
On Sat 13 Mar 2021 at 21:13, Alexander Burger wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 08:59:37PM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
>> On Sat 13 Mar 2021 at 19:09, Alexander Burger wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 06:48:22PM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
>> >>(de (Col . Prg)
>> >> (prin "")
>> >>
On Sat 13 Mar 2021 at 19:09, Alexander Burger wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 06:48:22PM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
>>(de (Col . Prg)
>> (prin "")
>> (run Prg)
>> (prin "") )
>>
>> prin has side-effect.
>
> Nonsense! 'prin' *is* the only and desired effect.
see https://e
On Sat 13 Mar 2021 at 18:48, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
> would be better written as:
>
>(de p @ (cons 'p (args)))
s/args/rest:
(de p @ (cons 'p (rest)))
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
On Sat 13 Mar 2021 at 19:09, Alexander Burger wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 06:48:22PM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
>>(de (Col . Prg)
>> (prin "")
>> (run Prg)
>> (prin "") )
>>
>> prin has side-effect.
>
> Nonsense! 'prin' *is* the only and desired effect.
see https://e
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 07:09:24PM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
> > prin has side-effect.
>
> Nonsense! 'prin' *is* the only and desired effect.
> ...
> This discussion is useless.
Now I think I understand why.
Tomas misunderstood my initial mail. He did not attend PilCon, and seems to
believe
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 06:48:22PM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
>(de (Col . Prg)
> (prin "")
> (run Prg)
> (prin "") )
>
> prin has side-effect.
Nonsense! 'prin' *is* the only and desired effect.
> Col is not properly escaped!
How so? It generates
What kind if escap
On Sat 13 Mar 2021 at 16:04, Alexander Burger wrote:
> I don't get your problem with side effects!
in your example:
(de (Col . Prg)
(prin "")
(run Prg)
(prin "") )
prin has side-effect.
Col is not properly escaped!
This example:
(de Prg
(prin "")
(run Pr
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 04:04:56PM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
> I don't get your problem with side effects!
Anyway, we are completely off-topic now :)
You started with critics about FEXPRs, but never said anything relevant about
them. Your code examples like
(de (Str) `(p ,Str))
are EXP
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 03:33:23PM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
> On Sat 13 Mar 2021 at 15:03, Alexander Burger wrote:
> I am talking about an example which shows how inconvenient the standard
> picolisp your solution with side-effect is.
>
> Yet another example, writing out pdf.
I don't get your
On Sat 13 Mar 2021 at 15:03, Alexander Burger wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 02:09:30PM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
>> Avoiding allocations is wrong thing to do for this use-case. Printing
>> directly is severely inconvenient. Do you have a neat solution to the
>> svg viewBox problem I wrote a
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 03:13:13PM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
> Another example: you have to be careful not to get an error in the
> middle of the side-effect otherwise you get partial output.
Hmm, sure, as in all kinds of programming. How does that relate to FEXPRs and/or
tracing?
Or do I misu
On Sat 13 Mar 2021 at 14:09, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
>> But the FEXPR solution explained at PilCon allocates no new cells at all. It
>> prints directly.
>
> Avoiding allocations is wrong thing to do for this use-case. Printing
> directly is severely inconvenient. Do you have a neat solution to the
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 02:09:30PM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
> Avoiding allocations is wrong thing to do for this use-case. Printing
> directly is severely inconvenient. Do you have a neat solution to the
> svg viewBox problem I wrote about?
You are talking about a different problem domain. Wi
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 01:57:58PM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
> For such a simple example it works. But keep in mind that typically 'P'
> is a large program, with lots of 'if's, 'while's and arbitrarily deeply
> nested other HTML tags.
For a short real-world example, take the "Sales" report f
On Sat 13 Mar 2021 at 13:33, Alexander Burger wrote:
> It does. Just the syntax is different:
>
>(de (@Str) (fill '(p @Str)))
>
> This also creates just 2 cells.
True, I forgot about fill.
> But the FEXPR solution explained at PilCon allocates no new cells at all. It
> prints directly.
Avo
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 01:30:27PM +0100, pd wrote:
> Composing strings (packing) have two main advantages:
>
> 1. Strings may be inmutable (you can return a new different string, maybe a
> copy)
> 2. Strings can be passed as parameter
Yes. (And strings are always immutable in PicoLisp anyway)
Hi Tomas,
> > While this would surely work, I answered that it is a big overhead to
> > generate the whole page as strings just to print them.
>
> Packing strings is not a good idea.
Right.
> It would be much better to create a cons tree instead, something like:
>
> (de (Str) `(p ,Str))
That's true but with comments ;)
Composing strings (packing) have two main advantages:
1. Strings may be inmutable (you can return a new different string, maybe a
copy)
2. Strings can be passed as parameter
The fexpr writing directly to stdout with print and running a program does
not returns a
On Sat 13 Mar 2021 at 08:27, Alexander Burger wrote:
>(de Prg
> (prin "")
> (run Prg)
> (prin "") )
>
> [...]
>
> One question that came up was why FEXPRs could not be replaced with normal
> functions (EXPRs), simply 'pack'ing strings:
>
>(de (Str)
> (pack "" Str
Hi all,
at PilCon three days ago we discussed about FEXPRs like
(de Prg
(prin "")
(run Prg)
(prin "") )
(de (Col . Prg)
(prin "")
(run Prg)
(prin "") )
which can be called as
( "red" ( (prin "Text")))
giving such output:
Text
One question t
25 matches
Mail list logo
