Antoniotti Marco antoniotti.ma...@disco.unimib.it writes:
(defmacro foo (n optional ((s key d f) '(4 :f 33)))
`(list ,f ,n ,s ,d))
it appears to work on SBCL, CCL and LW (just changed a few things and do not
have an Allegro running)
It is nice, but I believe that the CLHS says
Antoniotti Marco antoniotti.ma...@disco.unimib.it writes:
On Apr 13, 2013, at 20:02 , Stas Boukarev stass...@gmail.com
wrote:
Antoniotti Marco antoniotti.ma...@disco.unimib.it writes:
(defmacro foo (n optional ((s key d f) '(4 :f 33)))
`(list ,f ,n ,s ,d))
it appears to work
John Morrison john.nmi.morri...@gmail.com writes:
Hi All;
This is probably a dumb question, but here goes.
John Alan McDonald (Hi, John, if you're on this list!) has graciously
consented to let me try to revive some almost 20 year old CL software (
Arizona
Burton Samograd burton.samog...@gmail.com writes:
Hello,
I am curently translating the logic circuit simulator code from SICP
into Common Lisp and have run into a snag that I would like to ask
about.
The Scheme code is as follows from section 3.3.4 (page 223 of my
hardcover edition):
Burton Samograd burton.samog...@gmail.com writes:
I apologize, my original code was using labels but I copied the one
using flet for this question. Please assume that I am using labels;
the variable binding question still stands.
With labels, the code is right, that means either you're not
Tamas Papp tkp...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:39:39 +0200, Hans Hübner wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Tamas Papp
tkp...@gmail.com wrote:
Why do some CL library functions have :key arguments?
[...]
but it is a bit cumbersome. I can make my code simpler by relying on
Tamas Papp tkp...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:20:32 +0400, Stas Boukarev wrote:
Tamas Papp tkp...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:39:39 +0200, Hans Hübner wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Tamas Papp tkp...@gmail.com wrote:
Why do some CL library functions
Svante Carl v. Erichsen svante.v.erich...@web.de writes:
Hi!
I should call it string-conc, conc-string, or conc-string. I should
not expect from first sight that either, string+ or string*, would
concatenate. From those names, it also would seem surprising that
they can take any
