Re: State machine representation
From: Dave Roberts (ldave_at_re-move.droberts.com)
Date: 02/01/04
- Next message: Vincent Foley: "Creating standalone executables"
- Previous message: Dave Roberts: "Re: State machine representation"
- In reply to: Erann Gat: "Re: State machine representation"
- Next in thread: Pascal Costanza: "Re: State machine representation"
- Reply: Pascal Costanza: "Re: State machine representation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:38:35 GMT
Erann Gat wrote:
> In article <fSbTb.156975$sv6.865734@attbi_s52>, Dave Roberts
> <ldave@re-move.droberts.com> wrote:
>
>> Kenny Tilton wrote:
>>
>> > Oops. I forgot that the problem is if the key is not a literal since
>> > the key is not evaluated, so if the OP wanted to use defconstant to set
>> > up symbolic forms for the states (using literals would be madness) then
>> > they would have to use #.FSM-INITIAL and #.FSM-BUILDING-INTEGER.
>>
>> This seems like one of the areas where CL sort of botched this up. I keep
>> encountering lots of places I need #', and by implication #. (like in
>> apply, funcall, etc.). Scheme seems to have gotten this right. It's
>> simple philosophy that symbols just evaluate to one thing really helps.
>> You just use "define" and then things evaluate correctly.
>
> There are good reasons why CL does it the way it does, but you will find
> that people around here will be reluctant to explain them to you if you
> open by proclaiming that "CL sort of botched this up".
Okay, fair enough. I wasn't trying to be inflamitory, as I replied to Erik
Naggum. I was just expressing an (incorrect, as I now find out)
observation.
Anyway, please educate me. I want to learn. I read Matthew Danish's posts
and some by Pascal Costanza. I'm now reading a Gabriel & Pitman article
that Pascal pointed to in one of his other posts
(http://www.dreamsongs.com/Separation.html), which seems to explain a lot
of it (though I'm still reading through it as I write this).
So, in summary, I apologize for stepping in somebody's oatmeal. I'm just
working through probably all the standard newbie issues. When I see
something like I saw, my own tendency is to say, "This looks goofy." Please
feel free to reply, "Dave, you're a clueless newbie. Here's why it's really
smart, not goofy: ..."
-- Dave
- Next message: Vincent Foley: "Creating standalone executables"
- Previous message: Dave Roberts: "Re: State machine representation"
- In reply to: Erann Gat: "Re: State machine representation"
- Next in thread: Pascal Costanza: "Re: State machine representation"
- Reply: Pascal Costanza: "Re: State machine representation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|