Re: Is a new CL standard possible?

On 25 mar, 06:39, Marco Antoniotti <marc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 24, 11:57 pm, gugamilare <gugamil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'd go even further and
standardize iterate (with iterate, you don't really need the
collecting macro)

LOOP is standard.  Iterate is mostly useless, even if it should have
been in the CLHS instead of LOOP (Ok: this is a flame bait! :) )

No, no, LOOP sucks. LOOP is not lisp, it's a strange language that
invaded lisp. You can't do, for instance:

(loop for elt in list
(case elt
((:foo :bar) (do-something-with elt)
(nil nil)
(t (collect elt))))

This completely sucks. The functionality inside LOOP is eternally
trapped inside LOOP and you will never be able take it out and use it
anywhere else! (Ok, Yes, I caught your flame bait! :)


and cl-ppcre.

cl-ppcre is <quote> standard <unquote>

Swank can also be packed together
since 99% of CLers use Slime.

I am in the 1%.  You are not taking seriously the underlying problem,
which is to expose a real standardized networking API.
weblocks, maybe? The problem is weblocks have a lot of dependencies,
many of them you will never need for other applications. It seems a
waste for people who want, say, create desktop applications.


I would also standardize let with the features being discussed,

Useful.  Write a CDR and have it really really taken it apart.  What
if I propose my different version of ExtLET?  (Which, by definition is
better that any proposal I have seen so far :) )

It is difficult to agree with you without seeing it.

and
defmacro to allow easy hygienic macros

That is a big no; everything you can do with hygienic macros you can
do with regular macros.  Plus, we should really standardize CL-
UNIFICATION instead :)

When I said hygienic macros, I didn't mean exclusively hygienic
macros. Have you seen Clojure's macros? You do
(let ((a# b))
..)

and a# becomes a gensym. I thought something more like this. See the
discussion I linked in my text.

cl-unification is, IMO, very specific.

 (like closure's - seehttp://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/c8...).

About GUI, I wouldn't pack any GUI, it is up to the user to choose
one. For instance, I like Qt's visual. Many like McCLIM's flexibility.
Others use Cells-gtk. Standardizing one of them would make them
preferable to others, and competition / evolution would be lost.

There is no competition.  TRT woyld be OpenCAPI, possibly with better
underlying system integration, but I do not know if the LW folks would
agree on it.

Cheers
--
Marco
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is a new CL standard possible?
    ... standardize iterate (with iterate, ... No, no, LOOP sucks. ... do with regular macros. ... When I said hygienic macros, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: [PATCH 2/2] page table iterators
    ... Hugh Dickins wrote: ... but I do like to see what a loop is up to. ... the implementation of the macros is not insanely difficult ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Generating code which compiles to a jmphash
    ... A simple response of "learn to write macros" probably would not ... (defconstant dirs '(up down left right)) ... (defun all-moves () ... (loop for i from 0 to 4 ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Walking a list
    ... doubly}-linked list (that might be circular) and at some point cleanly ... An awful lot of common idioms are covered by the ... mapcar or macros like dolist accommodate quite a lot of these ... did, I think because of LOOP has gained more foothold than it once had, ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)