| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
<treeee> there is worthwhile discussion in this channel that extends beyond common lisp, that is why
<Riastradh> The primary focus of this channel is Common Lisp.
<vIkSiT> beach, ah i see now. so what do you suggest as a means of terminating the loop on the first occur check, and printing only the bindings?
<dsteuber> Scheme has its own channel and I bet some of those folks might suggest using Emacs too.
<vIkSiT> Riastradh, heh I guess primary is the watchword?
<treeee> yes, i have a feeling they would
<beach> vIkSiT: or, instead of doing (return-from do-check), do (return-from do-check <some-other-stuff>)
<dsteuber> Come to think of it, Emacs also has its own channel.
<beach> vIkSiT: whatever you put there will be the return value of your function
<treeee> well, if you feel the nature of my discussion is out of bounds for this channel, let me know
<dsteuber> Although I've gotten Emacs answers here rather than there. They ignore you more there.
<dsteuber> treeee: well what sort of Lisp are you interested in?
<vIkSiT> beach, aah
<treeee> dsteuber, scheme primarily
<dsteuber> I only speak common.
<dsteuber> OK, so why not hang out in the Scheme channel?
<treeee> i have used common lisp, and i have emacs installed and am slowly getting used to it
<treeee> dsteuber, is there a rule that says i have to use common lisp to be in this channel?
<dsteuber> Not that you aren't welcome or anything.
<treeee> i am in #scheme as well
<dsteuber> No, CL is just the lisp of choice here.
<dsteuber> OK then.
<dsteuber> Somewhere along the way, I seem to have lost the point. treeee, what was your original question?
<treeee> I find lurking in this channel to be beneficial, and i usually don't engage in discussion
<dsteuber> I usually just lurk also.
<dsteuber> But tonight I'm sort of not.
<a1k0n> he was just piping up in response to you and beach lamenting the lack of polish of common lisp, thus driving away mainstream users.
<dsteuber> Oh, right.
<a1k0n> i would really like to not have to read any more of that argument.
<dsteuber> Our stone tools.
<treeee> and i didn't have a question, i just commented that i believe the reason common lisp isn't as popular as its expressiveness would yield one to believe is not that there are issues with the language (although there most likely are, and i am not educated enough to talk about them). it is that there is more to language decisions for projects than JUST the language
<beach> treeee: for future reference, most people here are pretty tired of people coming here (or to c.l.l) telling us what we ought to do to make Lisp more attractive to them or to others
<treeee> i never said that
<treeee> but thanks for the pointer
<treeee> i don't particularly care whether any language becomes more "mainstream", my point is that it popularity isn't one-dimensional
<dsteuber> Well I for one would like to see the Lisp community grow. But that is because of my selfish desire to have more libraries on hand that would be the result of a larger community.
<dsteuber> I would offer SLIME as proof, but that only works on people who use Emacs.
<treeee> i use emacs
<dsteuber> Sorry, I thought you said you didn't.
<beach> dsteuber: as a proof of what?
<vIkSiT> beach, right, i did that. except, both of them now return the bindings value, and don't follow the conditional at all.
<dsteuber> SLIME is proof of a library for Lisp development being developed because of a Lisp user base.
<dsteuber> I didn't put that very well.
<a1k0n> fsvo "library"
<dsteuber> I'm basically trying to ***ert that a larger user community results in more libraries.
<beach> vIkSiT: "both of them"?
<treeee> at one point in time, i didn't use emacs. and prior to "accepting" emacs, i used a number of editors who were consistent within themselves, but differed greatly from emacs. my comments are a reflection upon my own experiences with lisp
<treeee> dsteuber, i agree
<lukego> seems to me that most serious programmers use Emacs or something Emacs-like regardless of what language they use. the IDE-love is for relative newbies to programming.
<lisppaste> viksit annotated #12999 with "this .." at http://paste.lisp.org/display/12999#3
<vIkSiT> beach, the above.
<treeee> lukego, newbies or not, there is a LARGE quantity of people who use visual studio
<vIkSiT> i have 2 test cases - one should return nil for occur-check, and one shouldn't
<dsteuber> lukego: I did like Visual Dev Studio when I used it on Windows.
<treeee> there is a LARGE quantity of people who use Eclipse
<dsteuber> For C++ development.
<vIkSiT> beach, right now, both return the bindings, (whereas one should ret nil, and the other the answer)
<dsteuber> Eclipse didn't exist back then.
<vIkSiT> and previously, both were returning nil!
<dsteuber> Emacs did though. And when I first met Emacs I had the usual difficulties with it.
<vIkSiT> treeee, for lisp dev?
<treeee> vIkSiT, no, for other languages
<dsteuber> But Emacs keybindings from back then still do the same thing now.
<vIkSiT> dsteuber, heh, that slime-lisp-emacs video made me see the features of using the combo like nothing else has since (or did before)
<treeee> i don't know of people who use anything other than emacs or vi for lisp development
<dsteuber> Microsoft's tools have probably changed so much that I would have to learn them from scratch.
<dsteuber> I also use it for Perl.
<a1k0n> treeee: lots of people use lispwork's IDE or allegro's IDE
<dsteuber> And I use Emacs for HTML.
<treeee> a1k0n, hmm, good point
<dsteuber> I also use Emacs for usenet.
<dsteuber> I'm not even a power user of Emacs. Not by a long shot.
<treeee> i can't really comment for people who pay money for commercial IDE's ... i paid $15 for visual studio because of an academic discount
<vIkSiT> beach, comments?
<treeee> so my analysis is rather one-sided
<dsteuber> Lispworks and Allegro have free editions for trial use.
<treeee> well, by the time i had developed an interest in lisp, i was already trying to learn emacs
<dsteuber> Fair enough.
<dsteuber> There are only a few keybindings you really need to know though.
<dsteuber> Everything else just makes life easier.
<dsteuber> In a GUI environment you can use the mouse.
<beach> vIkSiT: I am afraid I am commenting without really understanding the code, but your loop terminates by returning the bindings the first time it sees a t1 that is not a qvar. Is it possible that such a t1 occurs before one that is a qvar?
<treeee> yes, and i am a stupid person, so i like using the mouse ;)
<vIkSiT> beach, hmm, that might be happening, yes. but i fail to see why that would affect this?
<treeee> i do believe that SLIME is a very nice environment ... my number 1 reason for not using common lisp at the moment is because I spent a good deal of time working through SICP and i wanted to use scheme, and as it is now, i have no need for common lisp since i am not really producing anything of value, which makes everything i say just that much more worthless
<dsteuber> Emacs is the way it is because it is on a different evolutionary branch from Windows.
<dsteuber> I use the mouse from time to time.
<beach> vIkSiT: when that happens, you get to the `t' branch in the `cond' and the loop terminates
<lukego> hm, it occurs that I don't actually know anybody in real life who doesn't use emacs :)
<lukego> not counting non-programmers :)
<dsteuber> I know programmers who don't use Emacs.
<a1k0n> i used vim exclusively for something like ten years.
<lukego> tcsh is about as exotic as they get :)
<dsteuber> And some who don't use it because they hate it and really prefer Vi.
<lukego> I do know people who don't use emacs to read their mail though.
<vIkSiT> beach, right, in which case *one* of the values should be returned? not both the nil and the bindings?
<dsteuber> I pretty much use Vi only for /etc files and such where I need sudo.
<dsteuber> $EDITOR is set to vi, so I use it for crontabs as well.
<lukego> trying to port my favourite Sawfish features into Squeak to make it a usable computing enviornment
<beach> vIkSiT: I don't know what you mean. do-check returns the value of final-bindings in that case, and it appears that final-bindings is NIL
<treeee> i think the one feature that i truly liked about java development was "refactoring tools", which is essentially a few tools that allow you to rename variables, methods, and cl***es (alpha conversion maybe?) and modify the structure, such as taking a set of expressions and placing them into a method, and replacing the expressions with an invocation of that method, etc
<dsteuber> If you use Lisp, why would you also use Smalltalk?
<lukego> incredibly hard to write geometry code that works in any of four directions when APIs are based on "top" "left" etc instead of integers :)
<lukego> why not?
<dsteuber> treeee: The nature of Java does make such features highly desirable.
<lukego> smalltalk looks really cool
<treeee> yes, but i would still like alpha-conversion
<a1k0n> treeee: yeah, i hope to see that sort of feature for slime. there are emacs refactoring packages AFAIK
<treeee> so i can just rename without having to find and manually replace all instances of a symbol in the scope
<dsteuber> I must confess I've just used M-x replace-string for such global name changes.
<vIkSiT> beach, hrm.. oh well, i'm just going to put in a dirty hack into it i guess
<Tomcat> dsteuber: That's what I use as well
<treeee> the point of refactoring tools is that if you have enough of the functionality automated, you can very easily modify the structure of your program without relying on manual copy and paste, replace-string, etc
<lukego> I would like to try a good refactoring editor some time.
<treeee> your development becomes just that much more evolutionary, because the cost of making a structural change is low ... it can be undone INSTANTLY
<dsteuber> I've never needed to do factoring on such a scale.
<Tomcat> treeee: Well if you like java so much, then use java
<a1k0n> refactoring is tremendously useful in any language.
<treeee> Tomcat, i am not talking about java as a language
<dsteuber> I factor code as I add code.
<treeee> Tomcat, try to provide more legitimate comments, or at least tell me that i am off topic if you believe that is the case
<lukego> seems hard to judge the usefulness of refactoring tools without actually using them. for example, maybe I would do a lot more function-renaming if it were easier and perhaps this would be a good thing.
<treeee> the lisp community often seems close-minded enough to completely trivialize anything about other languages, regardless of whether it is lisp criticism or not
<dsteuber> lukego: I'm sure that is true.
<vIkSiT> beach, woo hoo.. done
<vIkSiT> the problem was the (t case for the first cond
<dsteuber> treeee: I don't think that is a fair generalization.
<treeee> lukego, smalltalk holds almost legendary status in that regard, they wrote a book about it
<a1k0n> viksit: did you want to flatten final bindings again or something?
<beach> vIkSiT: congratulations!
<vIkSiT> i tried to see what would happen if i removed the (t and put in just a general return value..
<vIkSiT> and it turns out, that the removal of (t did it..
<lukego> there are some refactoring tools in squeak but I haven't tried them that much. I suspect that the Java ones would work better due to the static types
<treeee> dsteuber, no, it is not fair, but it is my experience in the past 1 hour in this channel
<vIkSiT> a1k0n, not really - just wanted to return nil when there was a conflict, else not.
<vIkSiT> heh
<a1k0n> heh.
<Tomcat> mmmm, I got distracted the point I wanted to make was, replace-string and friends work for 90% of refactoring needs with about 10% of the work of writing a real refactorer
<dsteuber> It is easy to settle into a grove though. When you get used to an editor and have used it for a while, it becomes a comfortable as an old shoe. Change is painful.
<vIkSiT> beach, thanks a lot for your help
<beach> vIkSiT: you are welcome. Good luck!
<treeee> Tomcat, well in that case, I just need to learn to be more efficient with emacs
<dsteuber> One thing I like about Emacs is that it is the same on Unix, OS X, and Windows.
<treeee> which is a good thing :)
<dsteuber> It's an old shoe.
<dsteuber> I've only used Common Lisp on OS X and Debian, but there I've had a similar experience. Writing code within ANSI constraints makes it easy to go from OpenMCL to SBCL.
<treeee> ive used SBCL on debian, but not a whole lot
Return to lisp
or
Go to some related
logs:
"select * from exec" mssql
football
|
|