comp.lang.lisp Google Group

Re: simulating local lexical variables with symbol macros

2009-11-21T22:54:30Z

C is, never the less, the one common factor that will hit all of those
targets. The other languages that you're considering (Perl and Python)
work because they're interpreted by a portable C program.
So: you could try other languages that are either implemented by C
interpreters (Perl, Python, ruby, LUA, CLISP, many of the schemes) or

Re: Symbol macros don't capture their lexical environments?

2009-11-21T22:12:34Z

In article
<496f4d65-e0ab-4079-9cdb-f14ac 8092...@j9g2000prh.googlegroup s.com>,
Hm... this is getting awfully Zen.
It seems to me that this all hinges on how broadly one interprets the
definition of "binding". That definition is "an association between a
name and that which the name denotes." So if one were to interpret this

Re: new lisp book

2009-11-21T21:39:24Z

If amazon gets a cut of the sale then I believe they aren't necessarily being taken for a ride. The
unsuspecting customer, on the other hand....
Rui Maciel

Re: new lisp book

2009-11-21T21:19:38Z

Fraud appears to be a very profitable line of business.
Rui Maciel

Re: new lisp book

2009-11-21T21:18:51Z

It appears that the alphascript publishing company doesn't hide the fact that their books are wikipedia
ripoffs. Taken from their site[1]:
<site>
Q: …do all of Alphascript’s books take their content from Wikipedia?
Alphascript: Yes, since we believe that the quality of the Wikipedia-articles is so good that it is

Re: Different behavior of SBCL and CLISP on 'directory' function

2009-11-21T21:03:20Z

But 'erroneously'. "systems/*.*" is a file pathname, so you should
get only files (from the point of view of Common Lisp; of course, from
the point of view if unix, directories are files, hence the behavior
of SBCL).
Try: (append (directory "systems/*/") (directory "systems/*.*/"))
if you want both directories with and without dots, or just:

Re: Different behavior of SBCL and CLISP on 'directory' function

2009-11-21T19:28:22Z

Pathnames are deliberately underspecified in CLHS. CL-FAD offers some
layer of compatibility:
CL-USER> (documentation 'cl-fad:list-directory 'function)
"Returns a fresh list of pathnames corresponding to the truenames of
all files within the directory named by the non-wild pathname
designator DIRNAME. The pathnames of sub-directories are returned in

Different behavior of SBCL and CLISP on 'directory' function

2009-11-21T19:19:28Z

Hello!
I've got different behavior on sbcl and clisp in the following
situation. I have a simple directory structure:
.
./systems/s-xml
./systems/cl-gd
./systems/cdg
Now, I want to get all files/directories under systems.
In sbcl, i do (directory "systems/*.*") and I get what I want.
In clisp, i do the same, and I get nil. I also tried to construct the

Re: simulating local lexical variables with symbol macros

2009-11-21T19:15:30Z

Yes, ruby would be interesting. I think I only need to deal with
Unicode in the sense that I'm (again, pragmatically) expecting
configuration files which are XML and the parse of these might
therefore throw Unicode at me by the nature of XML However I don't
think I need to worry about that too much.

Re: Symbol macros don't capture their lexical environments?

2009-11-21T19:14:39Z

You're welcome.
Not at all; it takes a lot of serious thought to fight the urge toward
hyperbole. It also takes a lot of serious thought to ask an
unanswerable question, in order to get people to think about what
they're assuming.
Let me put my question more
You may get squeamish if someone starts bleeding, and your first

Re: Clozure and Clojure

2009-11-21T18:20:51Z

In article <he91v6$ck...@news.eternal-sep tember.org>,
Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s. il.vous.plait.mac.com>
wrote:
AFAIK you got it exactly right.
rg

Re: Symbol macros don't capture their lexical environments?

2009-11-21T18:16:31Z

In article
<d3d917c1-e992-4a86-b6ea-fa3c1 d08a...@h40g2000prf.googlegrou ps.com>,
Thanks for taking the time to respond, I really appreciate it. But I
think that answer is a little facile, particularly in light of the HCF
hyperbole that you yourself brought up. Let me put my question more
precisely: why should leaking compiler information in response to a

Re: Remembering information during compilation

2009-11-21T17:42:45Z

You'd have to figure out how to implement this in your macroexpand-all
function. Ultimately, this function will be implemented by calling
either macroexpand or macroexpand-1 at various times. The issue of
wether to macroexpand a special-form is a hard one, and one that
should be examined carefully at a lower level than the level you to

Re: Remembering information during compilation

2009-11-21T16:03:19Z

I was of course referring to the interaction between multithreading
and lexical bindings. *That* is not covered by the standard.
Which brings us back to what I ask above: Is there any established
way for how such parallel expansion/compilation is supposed to work ?
To put it otherwise you're saying that my code violates some rules

Re: Clozure and Clojure

2009-11-21T15:45:42Z

Largely, yes. They both stem from the same pun on "closure."
Mikel Evins? :^)
(Mikel works for Clozure Associates, the source of Clozure Common
Lisp, and he has also written a fair amount of Clojure code,
specifically, a very flexible generic function system for clojure).
Seriously, Clozure Associates is descended from the group that did the