[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then bring in more statement and you either have to
remember precedence rules (I can never remember those) or add some
parenthesis (oops!).
Probably you've been burned by C, which has a
ridiculously large number of precedence levels --
I don't know *anyone* who can
André Thieme wrote:
The = is called cmp in Python.
In Lisp it is called signum. The Lisp function has in general the
advantage that it keeps type information.
While Pythons cmp returns either -1, 0 or 1 the Lisp version can
also return -1.0 and 1.0 and also complex numbers:
(signum #C(10
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Man that whole thing is messy.
I do not see much difference, except that the character count is 25%
less in the macro version:
The macro calls aren't so bad, but the macro definition is pretty
horrendous.
(a) /Precisely/ :)
(b)
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
btw, you called the defskill messy (repeated below) messy. The only
text not specific to absolute value is D-E-F-S-K-I-L-L.
No, the messiness was not in the macro instantation (defskill blah...),
but in the defmacro that tells the
Ken Tilton wrote:
George Sakkis wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too...
Mark Tarver wrote:
How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
think that one has over the other?
(Common) Lisp is the only industrial
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:01:46 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
You just
aren't used to thinking at a level where one is writing code to write code.
Firstly, I'm looking into lisp because my current python project is too
full of boilerplate :-) and too slow. Coming from a C and assembler
background,
Andrew Reilly wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:01:46 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
You just
aren't used to thinking at a level where one is writing code to write code.
Firstly, I'm looking into lisp because my current python project is too
full of boilerplate :-) and too slow. Coming from a
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again, that is precisely the point of macrology (in cases like
this). When a pattern will repeat a sufficient number of times, and a
function cannot handle the job,
But this is not a case where a function can't handle the job.
Check out the latest, plz.
Ken Tilton wrote:
Andrew Reilly wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:01:46 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
You just aren't used to thinking at a level where one is writing code
to write code.
Firstly, I'm looking into lisp because my current python project is too
full of boilerplate :-) and
William James wrote:
Actually, it's 'among', not 'amongst', except to those who are
lisping, degenerate pansies.
lisping: amongst = amongthpt ?
amongst is a fairly common british english variant of among.
Some pronunciations and usages froze when they reached the
American shore. In
Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2006-12-13, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try reading again. In Lisp, you use () and *your editor*
automatically indents according to the universal standard, or
you leave it sloppy until other folks reading your code
convince you to get a proper
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:06:26 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
Andrew Reilly wrote:
However, in this particular instance, I'm inclined to wonder why
meta-programming is the right answer, rather than just doing all of the
interpolation and what-not at run-time, based on a big table of
Christophe wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
Robert Uhl wrote:
Because it's the language for which indentation is automatically
determinable. That is, one can copy/paste a chunk of code, hit a
key and suddenly everything is nicely indented.
Cool, so in
Robert Uhl a écrit :
Christophe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Saying that the French units are technically worse than standard units
is a troll of very poor quality and a very weak argument.
It was just an example that the argument from popularity is invalid.
However, I (and many others) would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Christophe wrote:
Call us when you have an editor that reads your mind and writes the ()
for you.
This is an irrelevancy. Typos that drop printing characters in either
language will generally cause changes to the semantics. Lisp
programmers, incidentally, will
On 2006-12-14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2006-12-13, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Expressions keep the same meaning even if you have to start
breaking them across lines, etc.
Yes, it's the same way in Python. Of course, not everything
Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2006-12-14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2006-12-13, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Expressions keep the same meaning even if you have to start
breaking them across lines, etc.
Yes, it's the same way in
On 2006-12-14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2006-12-14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Cerutti wrote:
On 2006-12-13, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Expressions keep the same meaning even if you have to start
André Thieme a écrit :
Bruno Desthuilliers schrieb:
(snip)
Both are highly dynamic. Neither are declarative.
Well, Lisp does support some declarative features in the ansi standard.
If you go that way, there are declarative stuff in Python too... But
neither Lisp nor Python are close to,
Neil Cerutti wrote:
Please don't assume I speak for all Python programmers. They
might be rolling there eyes at me just as much as you are. ;-)
we do, but that's only because you keep on arguing with cross-posting Lisp
programmers.
/F
--
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again, that is precisely the point of macrology (in cases like
this). When a pattern will repeat a sufficient number of times, and a
function cannot handle the job,
But this is not a case where a function can't handle the job.
Is,
Bruno Desthuilliers schrieb:
André Thieme a écrit :
Bruno Desthuilliers schrieb:
(snip)
Both are highly dynamic. Neither are declarative.
Well, Lisp does support some declarative features in the ansi standard.
If you go that way, there are declarative stuff in Python too... But
Andrew Reilly wrote:
Each skill seems to have a title, a
list of annotations, and a list of hints (and a reverse, which I don't
understand).
There's the problem.
That all looks like data.
No, not reverse, the part you did not understand. I do not mean what the
code was doing, I meant
On 12/14/06, Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Reilly wrote:
Each skill seems to have a title, a
list of annotations, and a list of hints (and a reverse, which I don't
understand).
There's the problem.
That all looks like data.
No, not reverse, the part you did not
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
meanwhile, I have not seen how Python lets you avoid revisiting dozens
of instances when changes to a mechanism are required.
I think his solution would have been to use:
def foo(**args):
everywhere, and call it like this
foo(bar=baz)
Of course that
Robert Uhl a écrit :
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
meanwhile, I have not seen how Python lets you avoid revisiting dozens
of instances when changes to a mechanism are required.
I think his solution would have been to use:
def foo(**args):
everywhere, and call it like this
Robert Uhl wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
meanwhile, I have not seen how Python lets you avoid revisiting dozens
of instances when changes to a mechanism are required.
I think his solution would have been to use:
def foo(**args):
everywhere, and call it like this
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Mathias Panzenboeck a écrit :
Rob Thorpe wrote:
Mathias Panzenboeck wrote:
Mark Tarver wrote:
How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
think that one has over the other?
Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind
Paul Boddie wrote:
What would it take to get Python people more interested in it? I've
been monitoring the site [1] and the mailing list [2] for some time,
but nothing particularly visible seems to be happening.
Well, judging from the reactions on blogs to the initial announcement
here, quite
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Mathias Panzenboeck a écrit :
Rob Thorpe wrote:
Mathias Panzenboeck wrote:
Mark Tarver wrote:
How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
think that one has over the other?
Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here.
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
André Thieme a écrit :
Bruno Desthuilliers schrieb:
(snip)
Both are highly dynamic. Neither are declarative.
Well, Lisp does support some declarative features in the ansi standard.
If you go that way, there are declarative stuff in Python too... But
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip
outrage over my condescension and arrogance.]
Your condescension and arrogance are fairly well established, and no
longer cause much outrage, except in extraordinary circumstances.
',mr
--
rydis (Martin Rydström) @CD.Chalmers.SE
Rob Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Once you can do the above then you can phrase programs entirely in
terms of composition of functions, which is what functional programming
is about.
Getting good performance though is problematic without being able to
evaluate parts at compile time.
Willem Broekema [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess in part it's because there are not that many people really into
both Python and Lisp, and those who are might not find this an
interesting project because there is nothing wow to show, yet.
I thought it was of some interest though I'm a little
Ken Tilton wrote:
How close can Python get when code is involved? The reverse function
signature is fixed, so can lambda help?
Lambda can be used if the body can be written as a
single expression. Otherwise you need to write the
function as a separate def. When the body is more
than a line or
Ken Tilton wrote:
But this is not a case where a function can't handle the job.
Is, too.
And Ken moves one step closer towards Python ...
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=monty+python+argument+sketch
Tim Delaney
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What it isn't is some kind of miraculous invention that saves
programmers from ever making mistakes that are common in other
languages, or that reduces effort in copy-paste, as Bjoern seemed
to be claiming.
I didn't. I just stated that the Python way is less work for
Warning: absolutely off topic!
At Thursday 14/12/2006 08:02, Christophe wrote:
Well, I spent some time on Wikipedia looking up metric systems and
things like that because of you, and I found a page that shows how to
improve the current SI system by reducing the number of fundamental
units to
Bill Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the macro is just a friendlier syntax for expressing an idea.
I like that phrase!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the above 'duck-typing' idiom considered very useful to a
Lisper? It seems logical to me that duck-typing works best in an
environment where it is ubiquitous. If users have to implement
accessors specifically to use your library, it is not as good as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let us note that it's not FSF that gives this stuff away for free -- or
if it is them proximally, it is not them ultimately -- ultimately it's
the engineers who did all that work that gave it away for free.
When I worked there, they paid me ;-)
--
Bill Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You should be pragmatic about this - I have never used a CL
implementation that didn't do TCO optimization (indeed, are there
any?). Although the standard doesn't require it, I treat it as a de
facto requirement and don't worry too much about it.
I have
Kay Schluehr wrote:
You mean a universal language adapter? I guess this is always possible
using alpha conversion but I don't believe this leads to theoretical or
practical interesting solutions but is just a limit concept.
Not familiarized with you terminology. I think that i would call that
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:07:01 +1300, greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] tried to
confuse everyone with this message:
Robert Uhl wrote:
o Symbols
In Lisp, a symbol is essentially a hashed string;
Are you aware that strings can be interned in Python?
Furthermore, any string literal in the source that
is a
[Bill Atkins]
(Why are people from c.l.p calling parentheses brackets?)
[Kaz Kylheku]
Because that's what they are often called outside of the various
literate fields.
For example, the English are outside of the various literate fields?
FWIW, Python documentation consistently uses the
On 12 Dec 2006 18:03:49 -0800, Paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] tried to confuse
everyone with this message:
There are a lot of people that use Wikipedia. I think some of them
might want to learn to program.
I think you misunderstood the goal of Wikipedia. It is not to teach people
programming.
I make
greg ha escrito:
Juan R. wrote:
I see no dinamism on your example, just static overloading.
There's nothing static about it:
q = raw_input()
if q == A:
a = 1
b = 2
else:
a = x
b = y
c = a + b
There is no way that the compiler can statically
Robert Uhl a écrit :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes:
Consider this: Lisp has had years of development, it has had millions of
dollars thrown at it by VC firms -- and yet Python is winning over Lisp
programmers. Think about it.
The argument from popularity is invalid. French units have
Christophe wrote:
Robert Uhl a écrit :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes:
Consider this: Lisp has had years of development, it has had millions of
dollars thrown at it by VC firms -- and yet Python is winning over Lisp
programmers. Think about it.
The argument from popularity is invalid.
Raffael Cavallaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com:
+---
| George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
| If you mistakenly select an extra parenthesis or omit one, it's
| the same thing.
|
| Because you can't mistakenly select an extra paren or omit one in a
| lisp-aware
On Dec 13, 8:39 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timofei Shatrov) wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 18:03:49 -0800, Paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] tried to confuse
everyone with this message:
There are a lot of people that use Wikipedia. I think some of them
might want to learn to program.
I think you misunderstood
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:41:29 -0500
Raffael Cavallaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com wrote:
# On 2006-12-12 19:18:10 -0500, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
#
# If you mistakenly select an extra parenthesis or omit one, it's
# the same thing.
#
# Because you can't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha escrito:
FWIW, Python documentation consistently uses the jargon:
() parentheses
{} braces
[] brackets
That matches North American conventions, but occasionally confuses an
international audience (for example, the English call parentheses
brackets or
Juan R. schrieb:
Kay Schluehr wrote:
You mean a universal language adapter? I guess this is always possible
using alpha conversion but I don't believe this leads to theoretical or
practical interesting solutions but is just a limit concept.
Not familiarized with you terminology. I
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| CLTL2 is a model of precision and thoroughness compared
| with any document that's ever been written about Python.
+---
It's a great book, but one needs to be clear that CLtL2 is *not*
the same as the ANSI Common Lisp
Christophe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Uhl a écrit :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes:
Consider this: Lisp has had years of development, it has had millions of
dollars thrown at it by VC firms -- and yet Python is winning over Lisp
programmers. Think about it.
The argument from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
Robert Uhl wrote:
Because it's the language for which indentation is automatically
determinable. That is, one can copy/paste a chunk of code, hit a
key and suddenly everything is nicely indented.
Cool, so in other languages I need to
Paul Rubin schrieb:
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the above 'duck-typing' idiom considered very useful to a
Lisper? It seems logical to me that duck-typing works best in an
environment where it is ubiquitous. If users have to implement
accessors specifically to use your
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 03:13:26 +0100, Paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not even close.
In my example above:
for a in y:
dosomethingwith(a)
y could be a lot of built-in types such as an array, list, tuple, dict,
file, or set.
- Paddy.
I was refering to the recursive Lisp example.
Did you
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:39:44 +0100, Timofei Shatrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 18:03:49 -0800, Paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] tried to
confuse
everyone with this message:
There are a lot of people that use Wikipedia. I think some of them
might want to learn to program.
I think you
Pascal Bourguignon a écrit :
Christophe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Uhl a écrit :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes:
Consider this: Lisp has had years of development, it has had millions of
dollars thrown at it by VC firms -- and yet Python is winning over Lisp
programmers. Think about
Robert Uhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+---
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I have the code here (probably not the latest bcs I left the company
| when it was acquired), let's do a little experiment, for what it's
| worth: 89727 lines of Lisp code in 131 modules (lisp
Timofei Shatrov wrote:
Are you aware that you hardly know any Lisp yet make such bold and unfounded
claims? Unless interning a string somehow gives it a property list, slot value
and function value it doesn't give you the same capabilities.
I'm talking about the capability of comparing
Markus Triska schrieb:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think all-rules-all-the-time Prolog is the poster boy for paradigm
slavery. (I did try for a famous two months to use Prolog as a
general-purpose programming language.)
Don't expect to learn Prolog properly in so little time.
George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is selecting a valid s-expression easier than selecting a python
block ? If you mistakenly select an extra parenthesis or omit one, it's
the same thing. Having said that, I find this problem is mostly
academic in both languages with modern
Christophe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Uhl a écrit :
The argument from popularity is invalid. French units have overtaken
standard units,
Never heard of that French unit thing. Unless you talk about that
archaic unit system that was in use before the metric system was
created.
I use
Christophe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Saying that the French units are technically worse than standard units
is a troll of very poor quality and a very weak argument.
It was just an example that the argument from popularity is invalid.
However, I (and many others) would argue that optimisation
Robert Uhl wrote:
Christophe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Uhl a écrit :
The argument from popularity is invalid. French units have overtaken
standard units,
Never heard of that French unit thing. Unless you talk about that
archaic unit system that was in use before the metric
Robert Uhl wrote:
Christophe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Uhl a écrit :
The argument from popularity is invalid. French units have overtaken
standard units,
Never heard of that French unit thing. Unless you talk about that
archaic unit system that was in use before the metric system
Paul Rubin wrote:
Does this count as a children of a lesser Python?
This sounds like a quite derogatory first question. CLPython is not a
dead and abandoned project, nor is execution speed its main goal, nor
are Python semantics bended anywhere (it can run the Pie-thon
benchmark). Sure, some
I use 'French units' instead of the term 'metric system' because the
latter means 'measurement system,' and of course could validly be
applied to _any_ system.Now we know how one contractor ended up using
English units when the
other was using French units and an entire Mars mission was
Robert Uhl wrote:
Ravi Teja [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark Tarver wrote:
seems to show that Python is a cut down (no macros) version of Lisp
with a worse performance.
By that standard, every other mainstream dynamically typed language
for you is a cut-down version of Lisp with
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:11:37 -0500
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# Lisp has all the cool qualities you like in your pets, plus native
# compilation in most implementations, plus maturity and a standard, plus
# a better OO, plus macros, plus a dozen more small wins. Including
# automatic
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:11:20 +0200
Dmitry V. Gorbatovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# Steven D'Aprano wrote:
#
# So which is it? If Lisp is so self-evidently better than every other
# language, and if nobody has any fears or concerns with Lisp, why is Lisp a
# fringe language?
# Because
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:38:14 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# Because it's the language for which indentation is automatically
# determinable. That is, one can copy/paste a chunk of code, hit a
# key and suddenly everything is nicely indented.
#
# Cool, so in other
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 21:59:58 -0500
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# Could it be because of people like J Shrager who writes things like this?
#
# Can't you just expand the language via macros to create whatever facility
# of this sort [major new features with new syntax] you need...
#
Rob Warnock wrote:
And for any of you who are rejecting this because you don't want to
learn or use Emacs, Raffael's point is even true in the Vi family of
editors (nvi vim, at least). The y% command yanks (copies)
everything through the matching paren into the anonymous buffer;
d% deletes
Willem Broekema wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Does this count as a children of a lesser Python?
This sounds like a quite derogatory first question.
I wouldn't take it that way: it's only a quote from an opinion piece
about alternative Python implementations (albeit a contentious one).
CLPython
Actually, in English, parenthesis means the bit in between the
brackets.
The various kinds of brackets (amongst other punctuation marks
including, in most english texts, commas) *demarcate* parentheses.
Wikipedia's Parenthesis (rhetoric) is, at time of writing, the correct
British English
Ken Tilton wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you read On Lisp by Paul Graham? It is on-line. Just the preface
will do, I think, maybe also Chapter One where he raves on macros. Do
you think he is mistaken? Confused? Lying? Mutant?
I remember Paul
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
pps. How would Python do this? Is it possible to avoid committing to
an implementation mechanism? Compare and contrast. k
You'd just write a function. Python's expression syntax is comparable
to a Lisp reader (you can have nested values of mixed types etc.)
Ken Tilton wrote:
pps. How would Python do this?
Here's one way it could look:
defskill(absolute-value,
title = Absolute Value,
annotations = [
Take the absolute value of #op#.,
The vertical bars around #op# mean 'the absolute value of' #op#.,
Absolute value of
greg wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
pps. How would Python do this?
Here's one way it could look:
defskill(absolute-value,
title = Absolute Value,
annotations = [
Take the absolute value of #op#.,
The vertical bars around #op# mean 'the absolute value of' #op#.,
Ken Tilton wrote:
(apologies for nasty formatting):
;-)
- Paddy!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't know. The point is, we need code (not just data) in defskill
(apologies for nasty formatting):
Man that whole thing is messy. I can't for the life of me understand
why it's so important to use a macro for that. Even in Lisp, I'd
probably set up the
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't know. The point is, we need code (not just data) in defskill
(apologies for nasty formatting):
Man that whole thing is messy. I can't for the life of me understand
why it's so important to use a macro for that. Even in Lisp,
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Man that whole thing is messy. I can't for the life of me understand
why it's so important to use a macro for that. Even in Lisp, I'd
probably set up the reverse thingie as an auxiliary function.
And when you got to skill 42 and you discovered you
Ken Tilton wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't know. The point is, we need code (not just data) in defskill
(apologies for nasty formatting):
Man that whole thing is messy.
I do not see much difference, except that the character count is 25%
less
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Man that whole thing is messy.
I do not see much difference, except that the character count is 25%
less in the macro version:
The macro calls aren't so bad, but the macro definition is pretty
horrendous. There's no need to invent and program all that
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Man that whole thing is messy. I can't for the life of me understand
why it's so important to use a macro for that. Even in Lisp, I'd
probably set up the reverse thingie as an auxiliary function.
And when you got to skill 42 and you
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
btw, you called the defskill messy (repeated below) messy. The only
text not specific to absolute value is D-E-F-S-K-I-L-L.
No, the messiness was not in the macro instantation (defskill blah...),
but in the defmacro that tells the compiler how to expand it.
Ken Tilton wrote:
Ken Tilton wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
Ken Tilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't know. The point is, we need code (not just data) in defskill
(apologies for nasty formatting):
Man that whole thing is messy.
I do not see much difference, except that the
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Does this make Lisp less dynamic than Python? Espen would say it's not
less dynamic, but rather that a similar level of dynamism is achieved in
Common Lisp via well defined interfaces. The compiler knows
Rob Thorpe ha escrito:
Juan R. wrote:
Ken Tilton ha escrito:
You missed it? Google fight:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GBword1=Pythonword2=Ruby
Python wins, 74 to 69.3. And there is no Monty Ruby to help.
ken
Nice animation!
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:24:07 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
Also, Python does not support a functional style of programming so the
line is the only meaningful textual entity. In this sense the
primitiveness of Python makes editing easier.
Why do you say that? Wouldn't a block in python be a
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Rubin wrote:
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So there seems to be something macro-like for Haskell.
I think that's some kind of proposed or experimental Haskell feature,
not in the current standard, but I'm not sure. I'm barely even a
newbie
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 03:18:07 -0500, Bill Atkins wrote:
We're not counting lines here, you goon. We're talking about how
expressive constructs are and how closely they match your concept of
what you want to do. The conditional example is lower-level; you're
talking to the interpreter instead
Kay Schluehr ha escrito:
Juan R. wrote:
Kay Schluehr ha escrito:
Note also that a homogenous syntax is not that important when
analyzing parse trees ( on the contrary, the more different structures
the better ) but when synthesizing new ones by fitting different
fragments of them
Kaz Kylheku ha escrito:
Kay Schluehr wrote:
Juan R. wrote:
A bit ambiguous my reading. What is not feasible in general? Achieving
compositionality?
Given two languages L1 = (G1,T1), L2 = (G2, T2 ) where G1, G2 are
grammars and T1, T2 transformers that transform source written in
greg ha escrito:
From another angle, think about what a hypothetical
Python-to-Lisp translator would have to do. It couldn't
just translate a + b into (+ a b). It would have
to be something like (*python-add* a b) where
*python-add* is some support function doing all the
dynamic
201 - 300 of 754 matches
Mail list logo
