* The Glauber wrote: > I'm trying to learn Common Lisp and afraid that the Elisp stuff will > distract me too much. When i feel more comfortable with CL, i may try > emacs again. I just like the editing philosophy behind VI better (but > then, Viper takes care of making Emacs work that way).
I learnt CL and emacs lisp at the same time, and it was never a problem that I remember.
David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> writes: > as I said from the start. it's mostly religious, and there's no clear > "best", since that's mostly an opinion.
> But your description of Emacs Lisp as some sort of bastardized language > is not an opinion I share. There's history there, and there are reasons > why it is the way it is. For an editor, it's a pretty powerful set of > extensions. Having written a couple of elisp programs, and seen how > much slower they are (and knowing _why_ they are to some extent) is not > such a great feeling. But Emacs Lisp and CL are similar in some > respects. I think that the main places where elisp is crippled is:
> 1) no package system > 2) dynamic scope everywhere > 3) reader, and reader-related functions, objects, etc.
cl-read will do that. Unfortunately it could not be made part of the emacs distribution because nobody could find Guido Bosch, but it's out there.
> 4) missing some basic types (e.g. bignums)
> actually, when I started writing, I thought that more major differences > would come to mind, but I think those are the major ones. For example, > the cl.el stuff takes care of implementing a lot of the CL functions, so > one can't really argue that elisp is missing _tons_ of CL stuff. Of the > stuff that's not in cl.el, but is part of CL, a lot of it is out there > (for example, I wrote cl-array.el, and that implements CL-style arrays > for the most part). Then, there's an implementation of CLOS (I think by > the same guy who wrote the java dev. environment, maybe called JDE?)
Called Eieio, by Eric M. Ludlam
> Not only that, but there is even a CL-style lisp reader out there > (cl-read.el) that's part of XEmacs, as far as I know.
OK, you already know cl-read.
> there's also a > lexical-let in cl.el. Basically, you really kinda have to explore elisp > to make it look and act like CL, but if you try hard enough, you'll find > that there are ways. For now, it's the next best thing until they > finally decide to start using CL for Emacs. I think that it'll happen > first for XEmacs. I think the GNU Emacs people are more into Guile than > the XEmacs people (some of whom, actually, were involved with > Lucid).
Oddly enuff, there's a Scheme called librep that's derived from Elisp in the first place, but I've heard no discussion about whether that would be a more attainable target than changing to Guile/Scheme.
From what I saw, ISTM it'd have some advantages in that library functions match Elisp more closely. But of course GNU wants Guile to be a common language and library, which has its advantages.
Marco Antoniotti wrote: >rur...@sbox.tu-graz.ac.at (Reini Urban) writes: >> Dave wrote: >> >What's your editor of choice? >> >notepad?...emacs?
>> This guy got you, folks. It was an AutoLISP question :)
>> dave, >> comp.cad.autocad is the appropriate newsgroup. >> see the faq entry about editors in my sig.
>I don't understand your answer. What is out there that is *not* >editable by (X)Emacs or od? :)
because there exist only two Autolisp'ers who use (X)emacs to my knowledge. notepad is the most common editor for them, with lisppad on the high-end side, for those who cannot afford visual lisp (formely known as vital lisp). The latter two are nicely intergrated into AutoCAD, (X)emacs not (yet). ntemacs beats only notepad so far, but not the other specialized AutoLISP or other more general purpose win32 editors which are in common use. -- Reini Urban http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/autocad/news/faq/autolisp.html
Tom Breton <t...@world.std.com> writes: > David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> > as I said from the start. it's mostly religious, and there's no clear > > "best", since that's mostly an opinion.
> > But your description of Emacs Lisp as some sort of bastardized language > > is not an opinion I share. There's history there, and there are reasons > > why it is the way it is. For an editor, it's a pretty powerful set of > > extensions. Having written a couple of elisp programs, and seen how > > much slower they are (and knowing _why_ they are to some extent) is not > > such a great feeling. But Emacs Lisp and CL are similar in some > > respects. I think that the main places where elisp is crippled is:
> > 1) no package system > > 2) dynamic scope everywhere > > 3) reader, and reader-related functions, objects, etc.
> cl-read will do that. Unfortunately it could not be made part of the > emacs distribution because nobody could find Guido Bosch, but it's out > there.
I am not familiar with Guido Bosch's extension, bu I have been using mine for quite some time (at the time it was also submitted to gnu.emacs.sources)
;;; cl-read.el -- Some Common Lisp style READ functions for Emacs ;;; Lisp. (Written following the CL extension package style of ;;; suffixing Emacs Lisp names with a '*').
;;; This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify ;;; it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by ;;; the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) ;;; any later version.
;;; This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, ;;; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of ;;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the ;;; GNU General Public License for more details.
;;; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License ;;; along with GNU Emacs; see the file COPYING. If not, write to the ;;; Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, ;;; Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
;;; Commentary:
;;; These are extensions to Emacs Lisp that provide a degree of ;;; Common Lisp compatibility, beyond what is already built-in ;;; in Emacs Lisp. ;; ;;; This code was written by Marco Antoniotti, based on the CL ;;; extensions coming with GNU Emacs. ;; ;;; This package works with Emacs 19, Emacs 20, and Lucid Emacs 19. ;; ;;; Bug reports, comments, and suggestions are welcome!
;;; Code:
(require 'cl)
;;; Note the CL style DEFUN*.
(defun* read* (&optional (input-stream standard-input) (eof-error-p t) eof-value recursivep) "Reads a Emacs Lisp object from INPUT-STREAM. READ* is a Common Lisp like extension to Emacs Lisp READ function. The argument EOF-ERROR-P tells the function what to do in case of a END-OF-FILE error is signalled by the underlying reader: if non-NIL then the error is re-signalled, if NIL then the value of EOF-VALUE is returned from the function. RECURSIVEP is not used/usable in Emacs-Lisp. It is in the argument list only for aesthetic/compatibility reasons." (declare (ignore recursivep)) (condition-case eof-condition (read input-stream) (end-of-file (if (not eof-error-p) eof-value (signal 'end-of-file (cdr eof-condition)) ))))
(defun* read-from-string* (input-string &optional (eof-error-p t) eof-value recursivep &key (start 0) (end (length input-string)) ) "Reads a Emacs Lisp object from INPUT-STRING. READ-FROM-STRING* is a Common Lisp like extension to Emacs Lisp READ function. The argument EOF-ERROR-P tells the function what to do in case of a END-OF-FILE error is signalled by the underlying reader: if non-NIL then the error is re-signalled, if NIL then the value of EOF-VALUE is returned from the function.
Keyword arguments :START and :END delimits the substring to scan for Emacs Lisp objects.
RECURSIVEP is not used/usable in Emacs-Lisp. It is in the argument list only for aesthetic/compatibility reasons.
The returned value is a cons: (OBJECT-READ . FINAL-STRING-INDEX)." (declare (ignore recursivep)) (condition-case eof-condition (read-from-string input-string start end) (end-of-file (if (not eof-error-p) eof-value (signal 'end-of-file '("string ended."))) ;; We should probably define a new error. )))
Marco Antoniotti <marc...@parades.rm.cnr.it> writes: > > cl-read will do that. Unfortunately it could not be made part of the > > emacs distribution because nobody could find Guido Bosch, but it's out > > there.
> I am not familiar with Guido Bosch's extension, bu I have been using > mine for quite some time (at the time it was also submitted to > gnu.emacs.sources)
> ;;; cl-read.el -- Some Common Lisp style READ functions for Emacs > ;;; [...] > ;;; Code: > [...]
This is very far from what cl-read.el does. As I recall, cl-read provides extensions for defining reader macros, setting dispatch macro characters, readtable support, etc. It also supports `#+' `#-' `#.' and much more.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > * The Glauber <theglau...@my-deja.com> > | There also seems to be a Jihad going on betwen GNU Emacs and Xemacs.
> The willingness to describe things as "religious" is only evidence > of the poster's lack of ability to perceive the underlying issues.
I think I was the first person to describe the editor thing as religion. I was just afraid of starting a religious war, and wanted to present as many facts about my particular opinion, and why I use XEmacs almost exclusively. Like most Unix guys, I am fluent in vi, but for programming, (X)Emacs is by far preferred (for me). What can start getting in the way of better judgment of a good editor for CL programming is that people (like me) use (X)Emacs for things like email, usenet news, discussion, web browsing, directory editor, in additional to all the stuff involved with editing and programming (and that's a lot of stuff). When it becomes that much a part of your life, there's almost no way to break away. (e.g. my XEmacs is my whole screen. Of course, there's sometimes an IE or Netscape, but that's about it. Talk about tunnel vision.)
I agree that it _should_ be a discussion based on facts and features. But what makes it religious is that the people arguing one editor often don't know much (if anything) about the one(s) they're arguing against, and yet still are sure that they're "right".
When I first learned about XEmacs, I remember thinking "How can they have made GNU Emacs better?" My mind was barely open enough to try it out, and I resisted for months. What saved me was simple curiosity.
dave
(p.s. I hate to say `saved me', but it's actually how I feel. sorry.)
David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> writes: > Marco Antoniotti <marc...@parades.rm.cnr.it> writes:
> > > cl-read will do that. Unfortunately it could not be made part of the > > > emacs distribution because nobody could find Guido Bosch, but it's out > > > there.
> > I am not familiar with Guido Bosch's extension, bu I have been using > > mine for quite some time (at the time it was also submitted to > > gnu.emacs.sources)
> > ;;; cl-read.el -- Some Common Lisp style READ functions for Emacs > > ;;; [...] > > ;;; Code: > > [...]
> This is very far from what cl-read.el does. As I recall, cl-read > provides extensions for defining reader macros, setting dispatch macro > characters, readtable support, etc. It also supports `#+' `#-' `#.' and > much more.
Fair enough. I was not aware of this Bosch's code. As long as it does not call the main function cl-read, I am happy.
Cheers
-- Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
* David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> | I agree that it _should_ be a discussion based on facts and features.
Now, I didn't say that. Taste and opinions and personal views are perfectly OK, but it requires a willingness not to confuse them with facts. It's lack of that willingness that I associate with religion.
#:Erik -- If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.
Marco Antoniotti <marc...@parades.rm.cnr.it> writes: > David Bakhash <ca...@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> > This is very far from what cl-read.el does. As I recall, cl-read > > provides extensions for defining reader macros, setting dispatch macro > > characters, readtable support, etc. It also supports `#+' `#-' `#.' and > > much more.
> Fair enough. I was not aware of this Bosch's code. As long as it > does not call the main function cl-read, I am happy.
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Erik Naggum would say:
>* The Glauber <theglau...@my-deja.com> >| There also seems to be a Jihad going on betwen GNU Emacs and Xemacs.
> The willingness to describe things as "religious" is only evidence > of the poster's lack of ability to perceive the underlying issues.
> Nothing good can come of describing something as "religious" or in > religious terms: It leads to counter-productive meta-discussions.
Religious "wars" have tended to occur over theological and doctrinal technicalities of one sort or another. The parallels between that and the _computing_ technicalities that result in "computing wars" are pretty strong.
In the "free software" community, there are various "religious personages" that map quite nicely onto the Catholic concept of "the papacy," and the various offshoots of various projects correspond just as nicely to "religious" concepts of heresy and orthodoxy, sectarianism, and such.
The growth of interest in Linux, as distinct from "FSF stuff," can be quite usefully compared to the Protestant Reformation that split away from the Roman Catholic Church.
The fact that RMS has considerable distain for organized religion <http://www.stallman.org/dr-laura.html> does not diminish that he is _decidedly_ one of the "Papal" figures, illustrated by the fact that he commonly dons the "vestiments" in the role of "Saint IGNUcious," and has a position that _strongly_ parallels that of the Pope in Vatican City.
So I quite disagree that ignoring "religious" considerations is valid; a whole lot of it _is_ quite religious, whether there's a "god" involved or not. -- cbbro...@ntlug.org - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/> I called that number and they said whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth.
* Christopher Browne | So I quite disagree that ignoring "religious" considerations is | valid; a whole lot of it _is_ quite religious, whether there's a | "god" involved or not.
Only if you already believe that "religious" is a useful reduction of the observed phenomena and you are willing to ignore (or worse, embrace) the abjectly mystical connotations. I maintain that religion is the result of a small number of well-understood human psychological needs, but some are somehow kept from understanding these issues in the continued belief in the "mystical".
Not all things not understood are irrational in basis. Not all things irrational are religious. However, all things religious are mystical _and_ irrational in nature. Dragging religion into a discussion is an _insult_ to those who want to understand and demystify what they observe. Dragging the organized religions into the incredibly silly "wars" is deeply disrespectful of them, and whatever they have done to deserve scorn, disrespect is uncalled for.
But meta-discussions suck, so I'll end here.
#:Erik -- If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.
> > > This is very far from what cl-read.el does. As I recall, cl-read > > > provides extensions for defining reader macros, setting dispatch macro > > > characters, readtable support, etc. It also supports `#+' `#-' `#.' and > > > much more.
> > Fair enough. I was not aware of this Bosch's code. As long as it > > does not call the main function cl-read, I am happy.
> Its major entry point is called reader::read
Good naming, yet bad. I am a strong advocate of naming all the CL function with their proper name as long as they do not conflict with Elisp built-ins. Hence READ*. The Elisp crowd and RMS may not be happy with this, but they aren't necessarily right all the time :)
Cheers
-- Marco Antoniotti ===========================================
Your writings are occasionally truly dismal. So full of unintentional syntactical ambiguities. The content too, being dismal at times as to hurt my knowing eyes.
> But meta-discussions suck, so I'll end here.
If meta-discussions suck, then perhaps you are the one sucks. If you'll end there, you might as well not start, sucker of morons.
Topic sensitive Christopher Browne wrote:
> | So I quite disagree that ignoring "religious" considerations is > | valid; a whole lot of it _is_ quite religious, whether there's a > | "god" involved or not. Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> wrote: > Only if you already believe that "religious" is a useful reduction > of the observed phenomena and you are willing to ignore (or worse, > embrace) the abjectly mystical connotations. I maintain that > religion is the result of a small number of well-understood human > psychological needs, but some are somehow kept from understanding > these issues in the continued belief in the "mystical".
What religion is or is not is not for you to glide by with a sentence in a way that is half by assertion and half by half-assed reasoning. By doing that, you shame the skeptics community. I'm certain you are filling your stupidity quota unintentionally, but it seems to me that your rant habit is ready to mass produce morsels of junk food.
Erik wrote: > Not all things not understood are irrational in basis. Not all > things irrational are religious. However, all things religious are > mystical _and_ irrational in nature.
Fine observation, but
> Dragging religion into a > discussion is an _insult_ to those who want to understand and > demystify what they observe.
what voodoo is this? First of all, discussion is not dissertation. Newsgroup writing is not thesis composition. The river of conversation drags in whatever it does, and it still flows without your grotesque intrusion. Secondly, religion can be part or central to a discussion. Please sync up your writing with your head, and don't let your rant derail context.
> Dragging the organized religions into > the incredibly silly "wars" is deeply disrespectful of them, and > whatever they have done to deserve scorn, disrespect is uncalled > for.
Are those 'them' and 'they' refer to _organized religions_ or the "silly 'wars'"?
The religion in newsgroup religious wars refer to the fervor, dedication, and not totally logical nature of debates (such as your love of Common Lisp), not about whether Jesus Christ uses emacs or what Buddha think of vi. And, analogy is a central part of human communication, if not the primary means for understanding.
If you scorn organized religion, fine. If you disrespect the disrespect of organized religion, fine too. No need to paint yourself like a swollen middleman saint.
> If meta-discussions suck, then perhaps you are the one sucks. If you'll end > there, you might as well not start, sucker of morons.
I always wanted to know the precise meaning of the phrase "something sucks". Maybe somebody has pity with me and explains this phrase to me? Of course I understand that it means nothing good.
J.B.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
In article <3958e71...@goliath.newsfeeds.com>, "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de> wrote: [...]
> I always wanted to know the precise meaning of the phrase "something sucks". > Maybe somebody has pity with me and explains this phrase to me? > Of course I understand that it means nothing good.
Interestingly enough, the it has the same meaning as when you say that "something blows"!
-- Glauber Ribeiro theglau...@my-deja.com "Opinions stated are my own and not representative of Experian"
> Interestingly enough, the it has the same meaning as when you say > that "something blows"!
Wonderful. I do not know the maning of that phrase either. J.B.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
> > Interestingly enough, it [saying that "something sucks"] has the > > same meaning as when you say that "something blows"!
> Wonderful. I do not know the maning of that phrase either.
As Glauber points out, to say that something "blows" is equivalent to saying it "sucks," although the latter is more common. Both mean that the subject somehow lacks value or fails to meet expectations.
For example, if I say that a specific piece of software sucks, I mean that it doesn't work as well as I expect it should, perhaps from the perspective of performance, features, or ease of use.
Another, completely off-topic example comes via a friend in the Army. He has been stationed in Kansas and in Texas; neither post was very popular with him or his comrades. Apparently, the going joke is:
Q: Why is Oklahoma so windy?
A: Because Kansas blows and Texas sucks!
[Note to our international friends: Oklahoma is a US state located between Kansas and Texas.]
At his point the discussion has nearly reached this conclusion: Whether a matter is or is not a religious issue is itself a religious issue.
Having achieved Lisper's nirvana of metacircularity, I will now fold my cards and put them back in the card reader. I've never met a circularity I couldn't meet.
"Well met, my lord, I am glad to see your honor." - Priest, Richard III, Act III Scene II, Shakespeare
"Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de> writes: > > > But meta-discussions suck, so I'll end here.
> > If meta-discussions suck, then perhaps you are the one sucks. If you'll > end > > there, you might as well not start, sucker of morons.
> I always wanted to know the precise meaning of the phrase "something sucks". > Maybe somebody has pity with me and explains this phrase to me?
You have the phrase wrong, I think. It is 'nothing sucks', and is an abbreviation of the well known advertising slogan, 'nothing sucks like a VAX'. The slogan, needless to say, related to a vacuum cleaner; no-one, I'm sure, would wish to make so slighting a reference to the revered products of the Digital Equipment Corporation of honoured memory.
> > > Interestingly enough, it [saying that "something sucks"] has the > > > same meaning as when you say that "something blows"!
> > Wonderful. I do not know the maning of that phrase either.
> As Glauber points out, to say that something "blows" is equivalent > to saying it "sucks," although the latter is more common. Both mean > that the subject somehow lacks value or fails to meet expectations.
> For example, if I say that a specific piece of software sucks, I > mean that it doesn't work as well as I expect it should, perhaps > from the perspective of performance, features, or ease of use.
> Another, completely off-topic example comes via a friend in the > Army. He has been stationed in Kansas and in Texas; neither post > was very popular with him or his comrades. Apparently, the going > joke is:
> Q: Why is Oklahoma so windy?
> A: Because Kansas blows and Texas sucks!
> [Note to our international friends: Oklahoma is a US state located > between Kansas and Texas.]
Nice explanation and example, thank you very much. J.B.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Now this is the way you Austrians had always handled your Hungarian subjects. This started when the army of Karl V returned at the Hungarian border refusing to free the country, then Ferdinand I had the then Hungarian King murdered and later the archduchess Sophie had 13 Hungarian generals executed at Arad. And you are having the same attitude towards me. Instead of telling me clearly what these thingsw mean in a simple enough language you are mocking. I hope you will feel guilty after the mail.
J.B.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
"Janos Blazi" <jbl...@netsurf.de> writes: > Reini Urban <rur...@sbox.tu-graz.ac.at> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> > it means that you would avoid to do so (both) it if someone asks you, > > assuming you're male.
> Now this is the way you Austrians had always handled your Hungarian > subjects. This started when the army of Karl V returned at the Hungarian > border refusing to free the country, then Ferdinand I had the then Hungarian > King murdered and later the archduchess Sophie had 13 Hungarian generals > executed at Arad. And you are having the same attitude towards me. Instead > of telling me clearly what these thingsw mean in a simple enough language > you are mocking. I hope you will feel guilty after the mail.
ah, english is not the universal unifier, after all...
basically, not to mince words, "sucks" and "blows" are verbs in english slang to denote the act of fellatio. the intimation is that the actor is at a disadvantage wrt the receiver (in terms of pleasure from the act), and so the intransitive usage indicates disadvantageousness (!). in many cultures, there is gender-bias for the power relationship inherent in fellatio, w/ effective disadvantge more pronounced if the actor is male (clearly the receiver must be male, or at least male-like(!)).
ok, i hope this clears things up and prevents further international misunderstanding. apologies to the puritans. may deja.com glitch before my SO reads this!
