Tamas Papp writes:
> My problem with the key argument is that it complicates the interface. I
> would like to use the same interface for sample statistics and random
> variables, eg currently in CL-NUM-UTILS and CL-RANDOM I have
If that complicates the interface then don't use them!
&KEY are
On Jul 5, 2011, at 11:51 , Tamas Papp wrote:
> I am very happy to learn about these things. Currently I am working
> on the algorithms and my main concern is to ensure correctness; speed
> is secondary at this point, but even though I am not optimizing, I
> want to keep my code optimizable later
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:11:56 +0300, Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
> On 4 July 2011 19:42, Pascal J. Bourguignon
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think so.
>
> I disagree strongly, and I'm pretty sure CLHS agrees with me, since it
> goes to the trouble of specifying what happens with FUNCALL.
>
> CLHS, DEFINE-
On 4 July 2011 19:42, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> I don't think so.
I disagree strongly, and I'm pretty sure CLHS agrees with me, since it
goes to the trouble of specifying what happens with FUNCALL.
CLHS, DEFINE-COMPILER-MACRO: "The &whole argument is bound to the form
argument that is pass
On 4 July 2011 16:11, Alessio Stalla wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Pascal J. Bourguignon
> wrote:
>> Nikodemus Siivola
>> writes:
>>
>>> On 4 July 2011 14:46, Stas Boukarev wrote:
* They can't be used with APPLY or FUNCALL.
>>>
>>> Actually, they can be used with FUNCALL.
>>>
>
Nikodemus Siivola writes:
> On 4 July 2011 14:46, Stas Boukarev wrote:
>
>> * They can't be used with APPLY or FUNCALL.
>
> Actually, they can be used with FUNCALL.
I meant that it can be use with FUNCALL when it's called not on a known
function.
--
With best regards, Stas.
_
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Tamas Papp wrote:
> I understand this. My main question is: why not do this with compiler
> macros? Is there any reason for this, other than historical?
3.2.2.1.3 might offer some insight: "However, no language processor
(compiler, evaluator, or other code walker
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Pascal J. Bourguignon
wrote:
> Nikodemus Siivola
> writes:
>
>> On 4 July 2011 14:46, Stas Boukarev wrote:
>>
>>> * They can't be used with APPLY or FUNCALL.
>>
>> Actually, they can be used with FUNCALL.
>>
>> (Otherwise, I echo pretty much everything that Stas s
Nikodemus Siivola
writes:
> On 4 July 2011 14:46, Stas Boukarev wrote:
>
>> * They can't be used with APPLY or FUNCALL.
>
> Actually, they can be used with FUNCALL.
>
> (Otherwise, I echo pretty much everything that Stas said.)
>
> Compiler-macros are, however, of decent tool for optimizing comm
On 4 July 2011 14:46, Stas Boukarev wrote:
> * They can't be used with APPLY or FUNCALL.
Actually, they can be used with FUNCALL.
(Otherwise, I echo pretty much everything that Stas said.)
Compiler-macros are, however, of decent tool for optimizing common
cases of :KEY and :TEST arguments.
Ch
Tamas Papp writes:
> I would appreciate advice on this. I am especially interested in the
> reason why some CL functions have :key arguments: is it because of
> efficiency, backward-compatibility/history, or something else?
The rationals for Common Lisp are generally explained in the first
ch
Tamas Papp writes:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:20:32 +0400, Stas Boukarev wrote:
>
>> Tamas Papp writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:39:39 +0200, Hans Hübner wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Tamas Papp wrote:
> Why do some CL library functions have :key arguments?
[...]
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:20:32 +0400, Stas Boukarev wrote:
> Tamas Papp writes:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:39:39 +0200, Hans Hübner wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Tamas Papp wrote:
Why do some CL library functions have :key arguments?
>>> [...]
but it is a bit cumbersom
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:12:33 +0200, Svante Carl v. Erichsen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am 04.07.2011 11:31, schrieb Tamas Papp:
>> Why do some CL library functions have :key arguments?
>>
>> I am asking because I am working on some statistics functions, and the
Tamas Papp writes:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:39:39 +0200, Hans Hübner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Tamas Papp
>> 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
>>> calls like
>>>
>
On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:39:39 +0200, Hans Hübner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Tamas Papp
> 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
>> calls like
>>
>> (quantiles (map 'vector key v
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Tamas Papp 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
> calls like
>
> (quantiles (map 'vector key vector) quantiles)
This not only conses "a bit more", it also dupli
Why do some CL library functions have :key arguments?
I am asking because I am working on some statistics functions, and the
design choice came up. Specifically, I can write functions like
(defun quantiles (sequence quantiles &key (key #'identity))
...)
but it is a bit cumbersome. I can ma
18 matches
Mail list logo
