ICWiener

5 ms·

1.
by ICWiener 11y ago
I can build strawmen too: - SmugCeeWeenie: I am so fast, look (oops, core dumped) - SmugGoWeenie: abstractions are so nasty we should get rid of functions, so that everyhting is laid out clearly. Hopefully, I have copy/paste. - SmugAda
2.
by ICWiener 11y ago
A functional approach: (defun mirror (tree) (when tree (tree (tree-data tree) (mirror (tree-right tree)) (mirror (tree-left tree))))) For completness, here are the defi
3.
by ICWiener 11y ago
I am not sure, but it seems that this may be implementation-dependent.
4.
by ICWiener 11y ago
Macros are not needed. You only need the UNWIND-PROTECT special operator, which is the generic feature you are looking for.
5.
by ICWiener 11y ago
Macros do not necessarly transform code at compile-time. A late-binding interpretation is possible. See for example http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/274200/33157 .
6.
by ICWiener 11y ago
See also the Ada Gems serie of articles: http://www.adacore.com/adaanswers/gems/
7.
by ICWiener 11y ago
Nice article. By the way, you may want to watch this course by Hal Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman (Henderson Escher example): http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-comput... Also, the article reminded
8.
by ICWiener 11y ago
When you try to apply all functions, the space becomes limited and you cannot see the resulting piece, especially when it gets tall.
9.
by ICWiener 11y ago
> After doing a function rather than instantly showing the next cube put a .5 second opacity transition Please, no animation. Instantaneous feedback is perfect as it is. My 2cts.
10.
by ICWiener 11y ago
I am surely missing something, why would you want to delay in the function?
11.
by ICWiener 11y ago
Yes, the use of macros is not always justified in the examples, because Python is quite expressive already. However, the ability to have macros is orthogonal with the feature set of the language. What is interesting is the ability to inspec
12.
by ICWiener 11y ago
Did you not read my reply, really? I already mentionned that with a Lisp like data-format, shared sub-expressions could be denoted using CL's reader variables: (document #1=(author (id "Bob") ... ) #2=
13.
by ICWiener 11y ago
> It's a tradeoff, of course. > Reasonable people can disagree about whether the tradeoff is worth it. > But that's my point: reasonable people can disagree. Sure, we disagree. I understand that you think there is a trade
14.
by ICWiener 11y ago
> Not only is he wrong, he's clearly wrong. You keep repeating that, but the more you discuss it, the less "clear" it is. > I don't understand your question. You acknowleded that we need to have a specification in
15.
by ICWiener 11y ago
Just as code is data and data is code, meta-data is another form of data. Erik' quotes are all taken from https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.lisp/8eUxiibm_zA/C... : > [...] is INTENDED to b
16.
by ICWiener 11y ago
Did you just summarize thousands of sentences in a single one? Neither <input type=button/> nor <input><type>button</type></input> does mean anything without a spec of your language, and trying t
17.
by ICWiener 11y ago
Erik Naggum even answererd the question about ambiguity himself in the same thread: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.lisp/8eUxiibm_zA/i...
18.
by ICWiener 11y ago
Slow clap
19.
by ICWiener 11y ago
Common Lisp (ql:quickload :drakma) (ql:quickload :cl-json) (ql:quickload :local-time) (defparameter *data* (cl-json:decode-json-from-string (drakma:http-request "https://gist.gi
20.
by ICWiener 11y ago
Note that the given example has only one place where all combinations are defined. Not sure if this could be done in C++.
21.
by ICWiener 11y ago
I don't see any kind of error handling, but if I understand correctly, in some cases in Go it is not necessary to check for errors directly (an errorneous output stream would do-nothing on write, for example). Do you think your version
22.
by ICWiener 11y ago
Regarding 1., I don't think it follows that the pattern-macro will end up in one giant namespace. I'd love to understand why you think so. And for 2, even though what you say seems desirable on the surface, you still approaches th
23.
by ICWiener 11y ago
Macros will expand into lisp forms, not only expressions. Whether a form is an expression, a declaration or a pattern depends on the surrounding context. I would say that declarations, ... are not syntax but semantic classes. Too bad the co
24.
by ICWiener 12y ago
Slap. Stop whining.
25.
by ICWiener 12y ago
> Wait a second--is this really using exceptions for control flow? No. If it used exceptions for control-flow, the defined function would actually throw an exception. Here, we catch "Exceptional Problems" and ignore them at mos
26.
by ICWiener 12y ago
Common Lisp: maybe an Animagus, like Sirius Black. Or maybe Alastor Maugrey (Mad Eye), who is quite powerful but is not necessarly attractive.
27.
by ICWiener 12y ago
My own point of view is biased, admittedly, but I couldn't stop thinking that Common Lisp was relevant for each item in your list. Of course, much isn't built-in, but this is not as bad as it sounds: concurrent channels are not pa
28.
by ICWiener 12y ago
"modern base API", what does that mean?
29.
by ICWiener 12y ago
Instead of @kernel and @cuda, you might want to use defkernel and with-cuda... See the example files for cl-cuda: https://github.com/takagi/cl-cuda/blob/master/examples/vecto... I though that Julia
30.
by ICWiener 12y ago
Ok, thanks. So unlike Common Lisp, symbol resolution does not occur at read time.

More ›