LISP - an excercise for experts?
ilias
wrote my first LISP.
of course language-modification.
it works, quite simple.
e.g.:
you find
(< 3 4) => T
ugly?
simply use this
(defmacro ? (a op b) `(,op ,a ,b))
now write
(? 3 < 4) => T
Easy.
now, i found something interesting about macros here:
http://www.paulgraham.com/lib/paulgraham/onlisp.pdf
Page 213
(defmacro abbrev (short long)
`(dfmacro ,short (&rest args)
`(,',long ,@args)))
with this, you can give unconsistent naming an end.
eg defun & defmacro
(abbrev df defun)
(abbrev dm defmacro)
now my problem.
i don't like the syntax. And now i try to change it. People say, its
possible with LISP, its easy with LISP.
try it, change the syntax to:
(defmacro abbrev (short long)
=>(defmacro [short] (&rest args)
=>( ['[long]] [@args] )))
i fail.
placing syntax of the , to e.g. [ is easy
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
but what about the closing ]
i tried then with this
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_ma.htm#set-macro-character
but no way. recursion, streams, read.
what is the right way???
please don't start the discussions about the *why* !
see it as an demonstration of the LISP *possibilities* !
Tim Bradshaw
want to do things with making [...] do something. You might want to
take a look at the code at http://www.tfeb.org/toys.html#SLIP which
does this kind of thing.
(now you're going to say this is hostile aren't you?)
--tim
Edi Weitz
> As usual I can't parse your English, but from what I can make out you
> want to do things with making [...] do something. You might want to
> take a look at the code at http://www.tfeb.org/toys.html#SLIP which
> does this kind of thing.
Probably <http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/toys.html#SLIP>.
Edi.
Tim Bradshaw
ilias
> As usual I can't parse your English, but from what I can make out you
> want to do things with making [...] do something. You might want to
> take a look at the code at http://www.tfeb.org/toys.html#SLIP which
> does this kind of thing.
yes, there is a similarity.
but if you try to solve the problem i've stated, you'll see that it is
not so easy.
>
> (now you're going to say this is hostile aren't you?)
i cannot say this.
i don't know what 'hostile' is.
Tim Bradshaw
> but if you try to solve the problem i've stated, you'll see that it is
> not so easy.
Well, it's your problem, perhaps you should solve it.
--tim
ilias
it's not my 'problem'.
it's a 'problem' of LISP.
Erik Naggum
| it's not my 'problem'.
|
| it's a 'problem' of LISP.
This whole attitude is a problemwith only with you. As long as you believe
you can blame something or someone else, you have a vested interest in /not/
solving the problem because you do not want to solve somebody else's
problem. This, incidentally, is also why nobody wants to help you.
Go away.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
ilias
> * ilias <at_...@pontos.net>
> | it's not my 'problem'.
> |
> | it's a 'problem' of LISP.
>
> This whole attitude is a problemwith only with you. As long as you believe
> you can blame something or someone else, you have a vested interest in /not/
> solving the problem because you do not want to solve somebody else's
> problem. This, incidentally, is also why nobody wants to help you.
paranoia.
> Go away.
no.
Paul F. Dietz
> > Go away.
>
> no.
But your mission is accomplished, ilias. We've all concluded
you're an idiot. That *was* your mission, right?
Paul
ilias
> ilias wrote:
>
>>> Go away.
>>no.
> But your mission is accomplished, ilias.
> We've all concluded
> you're an idiot.
of course i am not (related to the chicken i ate yesterday).
of course i am (related to genious minds on planet).
> That *was* your mission, right?
not exactly.
i try to assimilate the best of LISP.
and to throw away the garbage of LISP.
and to find some people with gentleness and/or analytical strength
during this 'mission', see it as a 'garbage-product', some people that
are not able to estimate their limits, do uncover themselves as complete
'idiots'.
i do my best to assist them.
do you belong to this group?
did *all* you that have concluded, that i'm an idiot belong to this group?
I don't know.
What I know: i prefere to discuss with a chicken (in its native
language) than with those 'idiots'.
Paul F. Dietz
> What I know: i prefere to discuss with a chicken (in its native
> language) than with those 'idiots'.
ilias, you're clearly a rather defective person. You are socially
inept, incoherent, and come across as ignorant and lacking any
qualities that would make us value your opinions or your presence.
Paul
ilias
thank you, doctor!
Joe Marshall
"ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D6FD4CE...@pontos.net...
>
> i don't like the syntax. And now i try to change it. People say, its
> possible with LISP, its easy with LISP.
>
> try it, change the syntax to:
>
> (defmacro abbrev (short long)
> =>(defmacro [short] (&rest args)
> =>( ['[long]] [@args] )))
>
> i fail.
>
> placing syntax of the , to e.g. [ is easy
> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
> but what about the closing ]
From the hyperspec:
``The definition of ( can not be meaningfully copied to {, on the other hand.
The result is that lists are of the form {a b c), not {a b c}, because the
definition always looks for a closing parenthesis, not a closing brace.''
True, you are using square brackets instead of curly ones, but the statement
still holds.
Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
Kenny Tilton
ilias wrote:
> back from the island.
>
> wrote my first LISP.
>
> of course language-modification.
uh-oh. i found this also from you:
> is a 'programable programming language'.
>
> and thats my main interest.
maybe not. "programmable programming language" means one can build a new
language on top of Lisp. One that also mixes nicely /with/ Lisp, ie,
one's new language elements appear in otherwise pure Lisp forms.
it does not mean /change/ Lisp, as in (defmacro i-refer-c ....) or your
attempt to get back to infix.
in fact, one gets a lot further with the p-p-l thing if one does /not/
fight the syntax.
it is said one should not make changes to the tai chi form until one has
practiced it for thirty years. something like that.
kenny
ilias
> ilias wrote:
>> back from the island.
>>
>> wrote my first LISP.
>>
>> of course language-modification.
>
> uh-oh. i found this also from you:
>
>> is a 'programable programming language'.
>>
>> and thats my main interest.
>
> maybe not. "programmable programming language" means one can build a new
> language on top of Lisp.
> One that also mixes nicely /with/ Lisp, ie,
> one's new language elements appear in otherwise pure Lisp forms.
as far as i have read in into the language-modification-cores, i think i
can mutate a Common-LISP to nearly whatever i like.
To something like "tschernobyll-LISP", that causes the hair of LISPers
to fall out when they see the code.
> it does not mean /change/ Lisp, as in (defmacro i-refer-c ....) or your
> attempt to get back to infix.
i don't try to get back to infix.
i simply play with possibilities.
> in fact, one gets a lot further with the p-p-l thing if one does /not/
> fight the syntax.
i don't fight the *syntax*.
i fight *everything* what annoys my thinking-flow.
and i try to use ANSI conformant LISP for this.
> it is said one should not make changes to the tai chi form until one has
> practiced it for thirty years. something like that.
i understand your comparision.
but this is not true for language-design.
> kenny
Coby Beck
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in message
news:3D70B126...@dls.net...
Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion, what possible good
is served by stating it?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Erik Naggum
| Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion, what possible good
| is served by stating it?
Perhaps you would like to entertain ilias by personal mail? If you
appreciate his style and wit and his fresh look at Lisp and its manifold
possibilities, which it seems rather few others here do, those who do
appreciate it would do well to congregate where it bothers few others.
Paul F. Dietz
> Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion, what possible good
> is served by stating it?
He is clearly laboring under serious delusions of competence.
If he's not entirely insane then pointing this out may encourage
him to go elsewhere.
Paul
Coby Beck
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
> > ilias wrote:
> > maybe not. "programmable programming language" means one can build a new
> > language on top of Lisp.
> > one's new language elements appear in otherwise pure Lisp forms.
>
> as far as i have read in into the language-modification-cores, i think i
> can mutate a Common-LISP to nearly whatever i like.
Just because you *can* do something, does not mean you *should* do
something. You don't have to answer this really, I'm sure you know that.
> To something like "tschernobyll-LISP", that causes the hair of LISPers
> to fall out when they see the code.
If that is your goal, you have chosen a good path.
But seriously, programming languages are social constructions as well as
technical constructions. Unless you live in a bubble you should write code
with its readability by others in mind as well as its readability by a
compiler. It is very difficult to take it well when someone new to a
language comes in wanting to change fundamental things immediately or openly
dismissing widely accepted norms and conventions. In fact, you should
*expect* that people will think you are arrogant and you should *expect*
that people will feel that your implication is you think they are all idiots
for living with and even embracing things that you have seen to be so wrong.
I am not convinced that this is your intention. I also believe that some of
the hostility you have received has contributed to your stubborness.
Nevertheless, you are the one coming into a forum and a language community
that has existed for a long time. This implies some obligations on your
part to reserve your negative judgements until such time as you can support
them with more than "I don't like it."
Usenet is "free as in speech" so you will do as you please but if you don't
consider the circumstances above you must take some responsibility for the
flaming that follows (however justified it may really be in content or
passion)
> > in fact, one gets a lot further with the p-p-l thing if one does /not/
> > fight the syntax.
>
> i don't fight the *syntax*.
> i fight *everything* what annoys my thinking-flow.
This is pretty much the definition of "close-minded." Do you really mean
that?
> > it is said one should not make changes to the tai chi form until one has
> > practiced it for thirty years. something like that.
>
> i understand your comparision.
> but this is not true for language-design.
It is true for everything that has earned any respect (with amount of time
as a variable proportional to the respect something deserves). I will grant
you that merit of respect is subjective but I would hope that your desire to
learn lisp indicates that you do respect it at least a bit so I don't need
to debate that point. How long do you think you need to study a language as
mature as lisp before you are ready to change it?
There is a saying in English that you must walk a mile in someone else's
shoes before you can judge them. If people are getting hostile towards you
it is because you have not even tied the laces yet and you are ready to
reject all kinds of things about lisp.
Be open.
Be free.
Drink the water and breath the air.
Peace.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
P.S. I mimicked your writing style above because I enjoy it not to make fun
of you ;)
Coby Beck
You may well be right (but obviously, I tend to disagree.) I believe that
more often than not, our enemies are the creation of our own actions.
Coby Beck
"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.no> wrote in message
news:32398335...@naggum.no...
> * Coby Beck
> | Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion, what
> | possible good is served by stating it?
>
> Perhaps you would like to entertain ilias by personal mail?
If I did I would. You or I may not like what he says but it is topical to
this forum.
> If you
> appreciate his style and wit and his fresh look at Lisp
> and its manifold possibilities, which it seems rather few
> others here do, those who do appreciate it would do well
> to congregate where it bothers few others.
If ilias came to a party at my house and bothered people, I would ask him to
leave. If he and I were at a party at your house, I would advise him to
leave. But if he is in a public place and bothering people I would advise
everyone around to move away and ignore him. If he is genuine and
moderately intelligent, he will learn and change. If he is stupid or a
trouble maker, he will get bored and leave. If he is insane then he is
unpredictable but will leave sooner than if you engage him.
Usenet is that public place without even the laws of civilized societies.
You cannot drive anyone away, nor do you have the right. But the good side
is, it is *so* easy to ignore people who annoy you and so easy to read
selectively so you can learn from others even when you detest a large
portion of what they do and say (as I do with you). I do not understand
people who are so eager to call others idiots and incompetents.
Actually, I do understand it, I just think it is an extremely negative part
of human nature rooted in weakness and cruelty. It is that part I detest so
much in the academic world, the glee people take in belittling and
humiliating others and the false comfort and pride they take in being
accepted and praised by their community. Putting other people down is never
about anything accept trying to elevate your own self image.
Well, that is off on a bit of a tangent, sorry (and kind of preachy, looking
back over it) but it is true, so I will leave it as is. I think dialogue
with ilias could have been salvaged with a few less people so eager to be
rude about it. And I stick with my advice that if one isn't interested in
his views and think he does not deserve/benefit from help, then just ignore
him or try once or twice and then ignore him. (much as you have done...)
Marc Spitzer
>
> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in message
> news:3D71754D...@dls.net...
>> Coby Beck wrote:
>>
>> > Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion, what possible
> good
>> > is served by stating it?
>>
>> He is clearly laboring under serious delusions of competence.
>> If he's not entirely insane then pointing this out may encourage
>> him to go elsewhere.
>
> You may well be right (but obviously, I tend to disagree.) I believe that
> more often than not, our enemies are the creation of our own actions.
but if you belive you are doing the right thing should you modify your
actions just because other people will become your enemies?
It is impossable to go through life with out making enemies. You may
make them for the best or worst reasons, but you will make them.
And I think that most of the people who are my enemies have never met
me, they hate me because of the groups I belong to(american for example).
marc
Takehiko Abe
ma...@oscar.eng.cv.net (Marc Spitzer) wrote:
> And I think that most of the people who are my enemies have never met
> me, they hate me because of the groups I belong to(american for example).
How do you know somebody is hating you if you do not know him?
Not because the person happens to live in Baghdad I hope.
--
This message was not sent to you unsolicited.
Kenny Tilton
> i fight *everything* what annoys my thinking-flow.
the spirit of tai chi is to win without fighting. sometimes by conceding
the opponent is right.
btw, are you exploring Lisp absent any application? That would distort
things.
kenny
ilias
it is false.
> ...the definition always looks...
false
see this code (using Xanalys LispWorks):
CL-USER 1 > (set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\()
T
CL-USER 2 > (set-syntax-from-char #\} #\))
T
CL-USER 3 > ( + 3 4 )
7
CL-USER 4 > { + 4 5 )
9
CL-USER 5 > { + 6 7 }
13
CL-USER 6 > ( + 7 8 }
15
CL-USER 7 >
> Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
i think this is not the right way.
ilias
> ilias wrote:
>
>> i fight *everything* what annoys my thinking-flow.
>
> the spirit of tai chi is to win without fighting. sometimes by conceding
> the opponent is right.
my 'opponent' is the complexity / simplicity of universe - i cannot win.
my 'opponent' here is the complexity / simplicity of LISP - peanuts!
you all here in c.l.l. are not my 'opponents'.
*most* of you are simply irrelevant for me.
*fight* - i use this word, why?
>>> in fact, one gets a lot further with the p-p-l thing if one does /not/ fight the syntax.
>
>> i don't fight the *syntax*.
>> i fight *everything* what annoys my thinking-flow.
correction:
i don't 'fight' the *syntax*.
i 'fight' *everything* what annoys my thinking-flow.
> btw, are you exploring Lisp absent any application?
no.
the 'application' is *modifying <language> by using <language>*
where <language> is CommonLisp here.
> That would distort things.
maybe for you.
>
> kenny
>
Greg Menke
ilias <at_...@pontos.net> writes:
I don't think you'll find Lisp very pleasant to use in this way. I
urge you to consider thinking up a real application- maybe some kind
of puzzle solver and start learning Lisp by implementing it.
Gregm
ilias
Kenny Tilton wrote:
>>>btw, are you exploring Lisp absent any application?
>>no.
>>the 'application' is *modifying <language> by using <language>*
>>where <language> is CommonLisp here.
>>
>>> That would distort things.
>>maybe for you.
>
>
> I don't think you'll find Lisp very pleasant to use in this way. I
it's your right to *think*...
it's my right to.. *know*...
...what i'll find pleasant.
> urge you to consider thinking up a real application- maybe some kind
> of puzzle solver and start learning Lisp by implementing it.
"some kind of puzzle solver"
this i'll do.
>
> Gregm
>
ilias
difficult to distinguish
_{_ = brace
*(* = parenthesis
> see this code (using Xanalys LispWorks):
>
>
> CL-USER 1 > (set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( )
> T
>
> CL-USER 2 > (set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) )
> T
>
> CL-USER 3 > *(* + 3 4 *)*
> 7
>
> CL-USER 4 > _{_ + 4 5 *)*
> 9
>
> CL-USER 5 > _{_ + 6 7 _}_
> 13
>
> CL-USER 6 > *(* + 7 8 _}_
> 15
>
> CL-USER 7 >
ilias
> To something like "tschernobyll-LISP", that causes the hair of LISPers
> to fall out when they see the code.
"tschernobyll" refers to a town in Russia.
There was an nuclear-reactor-accident.
Many people died at this accident.
I think many people loose their hair due to the radiactive emissions of
the accident.
Maybe some people today still loose their hair. I don't know.
What I know is, that my comparision/analogy ("tschernobyll-LISP" / hair
fallout LISPers) was of a *very* bad taste.
I am deeply sorry for the choice of my words.
I want to apologize honestly to the victims, their relatives and
additionally to everyone who felt annoyed by the style of my writing.
ilias
Tim Bradshaw
> it's not my 'problem'.
> it's a 'problem' of LISP.
yes, of course.
Takehiko Abe
That is 'Chernobyl' in English. The word means 'wormwood'
according to Tarkovsky.
Tim Bradshaw
>> Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
> i think this is not the right way.
But you'd be wrong, because it is.
--tim
ilias
i'm not wrong.
because it is *not* the only way.
if it *is* a way.
as i'm not sure if READ-DELIMITED-LIST works correct in the given context.
but *why* should i try.
i *feel* its the 'wrong' way.
Marc Spitzer
> In article <slrnan33s...@oscar.eng.cv.net>,
> ma...@oscar.eng.cv.net (Marc Spitzer) wrote:
>
>> And I think that most of the people who are my enemies have never met
>> me, they hate me because of the groups I belong to(american for example).
>
> How do you know somebody is hating you if you do not know him?
> Not because the person happens to live in Baghdad I hope.
Well I was in the army durring durring desert storm, my unit did not
get deployed though. And there might be some people who hate the
American military in Baghdad.
And I am Jewish, so lots of people hate me for that.
marc
Joe Marshall
"ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D720C2B...@pontos.net...
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> >
> > From the hyperspec:
> > ``The definition of ( can not be meaningfully copied to {, on the other hand.
> > The result is that lists are of the form {a b c), not {a b c}, because the
> > definition always looks for a closing parenthesis, not a closing brace.''
> >
> > True, you are using square brackets instead of curly ones, but the statement
> > still holds.
> the statement does not hold even in the context it is written.
> it is false.
The statement is a statement about conforming Common Lisp programs. If you write
code such that it depends upon the definition of ( (open-paren) being able to be
meaningfully copied to { (open-curly-brace), then that code is not conforming
to the specification and is not guaranteed to be portable amongst Common Lisp
implementations. Conforming Common Lisp implementations are not required to
interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
>
> see this code (using Xanalys LispWorks):
> [sample output elided]
One could make the argument that LispWorks is in error accepting the form
"{a b c}" as a list. Section 2.4.1 of the hyperspec states:
`The left-parenthesis initiates reading of a list. read is called
recursively to read successive objects until a right parenthesis
is found in the input stream.'
But regardless of whether or not you think this explicitly forbids the
left-parenthesis reader macro from recognizing anything but a right parenthesis,
it is clear that it does not *require* conforming Common Lisp
implementations to implement the left-parenthesis reader macro such
that it can be copied around to other characters.
If you try your examples on Allegro, Corman Lisp, or CLisp, you will
see that they differ in what they do.
> > Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
> i think this is not the right way.
Nevertheless, it is the right way.
ilias
...many things.
sorry, for not answering in detail.
people felt this.
people think that.
i'm friendly.
what some others interprete into my words and my bahaviour, is their
problem.
as i said, i 'do my best' to 'assist' the people to out theirselves as
'idiots' without sense for their limits.
so many complexity.
so little time.
'digital' politics?
not for me.
i'll continue to assimilate LISP.
i'll continue to have no 'respect'.
i'll detect and spy out all the garbage.
?
shit, i forgot to eat!
Tim Bradshaw
> i'm not wrong.
no, of course not. I doubt you are ever wrong, are you?
> because it is *not* the only way.
No, of course not. Personally, if I have to change the syntax of the
language in any way, I always write a complete new reader in C. It's
easier, I find. I'd suggest that you take this approach, too. We
just suggested READ-DELIMITED-LIST as a sort of test to see whether
you'd see how clever you were. You passed, with flying colours.
> but *why* should i try.
I can't imagine. With your vast intelligence and experience, it must
be so much easier to just intuit the answer.
> i *feel* its the 'wrong' way.
Gosh, yes, I bet you do. With a mind like yours it must be such a
waste of time to have to deal with all these people who merely work
from hundreds of years of collective experience, and/or having
designed the language, mustn't it?
--tim
Tim Bradshaw
> shit, i forgot to eat!
Keep it up, please!
Joe Marshall
"ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D7240B7...@pontos.net...
>
> as i'm not sure if READ-DELIMITED-LIST works correct in the given context.
Are you sure it doesn't?
>
> but *why* should i try.
1. Because you haven't suggested a better alternative.
2. Because Tim Bradshaw and I have years of Common Lisp experience.
3. Because asking questions but refusing to consider answers is stupid.
>
> i *feel* its the 'wrong' way.
>
Perhaps you should discuss this with your therapist.
Joe Marshall
"ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D724A9B...@pontos.net...
>
> shit, i forgot to eat!
>
The direct object, after the verb put.
ilias
> * at news wrote:
>
>
>>i'm not wrong.
>
> no, of course not. I doubt you are ever wrong, are you?
here i'm not wrong.
>>because it is *not* the only way.
>
> No, of course not. Personally, if I have to change the syntax of the
> language in any way, I always write a complete new reader in C. It's
> easier, I find.
i meant, there are other ways in LISP.
> I'd suggest that you take this approach, too.
no, i'll write one in C++. but not now. and not for this 'problem'.
> We
*we* ?
> just suggested READ-DELIMITED-LIST as a sort of test to see whether
> you'd see how clever you were. You passed, with flying colours.
instead of testing me, you should better test yourself.
have seen no concrete solution.
>>but *why* should i try.
> I can't imagine. With your vast intelligence and experience, it must
> be so much easier to just intuit the answer.
>>i *feel* its the 'wrong' way.
> Gosh, yes, I bet you do. With a mind like yours it must be such a
> waste of time to have to deal with all these people who merely work
> from hundreds of years of collective experience, and/or having
> designed the language, mustn't it?
you interprete to much into my words.
i'm a LISP novice. i cannot deal with to much complexity.
Solution with READ-DELIMITED-LIST will run me possibly in an
egoistic-coding-trap.
And tomorrow i have to continue on my C++ project.
So, you help me out of that disaster and provide me the solution?
As an experienced LISP-coder you should write it in about 5".
ilias
> "ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D7240B7...@pontos.net...
>
>>as i'm not sure if READ-DELIMITED-LIST works correct in the given context.
>
> Are you sure it doesn't?
no
>>but *why* should i try.
>
> 1. Because you haven't suggested a better alternative.
ok, i'll try
> 2. Because Tim Bradshaw and I have years of Common Lisp experience.
so, why don't you code it on the fly?
be friedly.
> 3. Because asking questions but refusing to consider answers is stupid.
they seem to me to complicated to implement.
>>i *feel* its the 'wrong' way.
>
> Perhaps you should discuss this with your therapist.
No need.
I've listened to the falling rain.
When did you do that last time?
ilias
> i'll detect and spy out all the garbage.
>
> ?
>
> shit, i forgot to eat!
clarification:
i don't meant "i forgot to eat shit", as "Beaves & Butthead" try to imply.
ilias
...
> Conforming Common Lisp implementations are not required to
> interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
correct.
until you make those 2 conformant function-calls:
(set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
(set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
then they *have to*.
> One could make the argument that LispWorks is in error accepting the form
> "{a b c}" as a list. Section 2.4.1 of the hyperspec states:
>
> `The left-parenthesis initiates reading of a list. read is called
> recursively to read successive objects until a right parenthesis
> is found in the input stream.'
the paragraph is misleading.
should be correct: "...until a right parenthesis (or a char which has
been setted to the syntax from the right-parenthesis) is found in the
input stream."
"right parenthesis" stands for "the function right parenthesis".
this function can be 'carried' by nearly any char.
this is LISP.
this is *beautyfull*
> But regardless of whether or not you think this explicitly forbids the
> left-parenthesis reader macro from recognizing anything but a right parenthesis,
> it is clear that it does not *require* conforming Common Lisp
> implementations to implement the left-parenthesis reader macro such
> that it can be copied around to other characters.
this is your faulty interpretation of a faulty paragraph.
and this is false.
> If you try your examples on Allegro, Corman Lisp, or CLisp, you will
> see that they differ in what they do.
if so, they are not conforming to Common Lisp Standard.
> conforming program n. a program, used to emphasize the fact that the program depends for its correctness only upon documented aspects of Common Lisp, and can therefore be expected to run correctly in any conforming implementation.
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
is a documented function.
>>>Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
>>i think this is not the right way.
> Nevertheless, it is the right way.
loop
Joe Marshall
"ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D72548E...@pontos.net...
> so, why don't you code it on the fly?
- You won't learn anything if I write it.
- It takes time to do this and time to test it.
(defun |[-reader| (stream char)
(declare (ignore char))
(prog1 (funcall (get-macro-character #\,) stream #\,)
(unless (char= (read-char stream t nil t) #\])
(error 'reader-error))))
(set-macro-character #\[ #'|[-reader| nil)
(set-macro-character #\] (get-macro-character #\) nil))
>
> I've listened to the falling rain.
>
> When did you do that last time?
It rained yesterday.
Tim Bradshaw
> correct.
> until you make those 2 conformant function-calls:
> (set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
> (set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
> then they *have to*.
No, they don't, you fool. try *READING WHAT HE SAID* In particular,
he wrote:
If you write code such that it depends upon the definition of (
(open-paren) being able to be meaningfully copied to {
(open-curly-brace), then that code is not conforming to the
specification and is not guaranteed to be portable amongst Common
Lisp implementations. Conforming Common Lisp implementations are
not required to interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
And, just perhaps, he meant what he said.
> the paragraph is misleading.
Wrong, it is precisely correct. Indeed, it is part of the definition
of what is correct.
> should be correct: "...until a right parenthesis (or a char which has
> been setted to the syntax from the right-parenthesis) is found in the
> input stream."
Wrong.
> "right parenthesis" stands for "the function right parenthesis".
> this function can be 'carried' by nearly any char.
Wrong.
> this is your faulty interpretation of a faulty paragraph.
> and this is false.
Wrong.
> if so, they are not conforming to Common Lisp Standard.
Wrong.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw
> As an experienced LISP-coder you should write it in about 5".
Indeed, and I pointed you at some sample code which uses
READ-DELIMITED-LIST, which you should easily be able to generalise.
If you want us to solve your specific problems for you then you can
probably work out the address to contact to discuss consultancy rates.
--tim
Joe Marshall
"ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D725AFC...@pontos.net...
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> ...
> > Conforming Common Lisp implementations are not required to
> > interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
>
> correct.
> until you make those 2 conformant function-calls:
>
> (set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
> (set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
>
> then they *have to*.
Why do you think this? The standard specifically says:
``The definition of ( can not be meaningfully copied to {, on
the other hand. The result is that lists are of the form {a b c),
not {a b c}, because the definition always looks for a closing
parenthesis, not a closing brace. ''
>
> > One could make the argument that LispWorks is in error accepting the form
> > "{a b c}" as a list. Section 2.4.1 of the hyperspec states:
> >
> > `The left-parenthesis initiates reading of a list. read is called
> > recursively to read successive objects until a right parenthesis
> > is found in the input stream.'
>
> the paragraph is misleading.
>
> should be correct: "...until a right parenthesis (or a char which has
> been setted to the syntax from the right-parenthesis) is found in the
> input stream."
Why do you think that the paragraph does not say exactly what it means?
Note section 2.4.2 which states:
`The right-parenthesis is invalid except when used in conjunction
with the left parenthesis character.'
This pretty explicitly deals with characters, not character syntax.
>
> > But regardless of whether or not you think this explicitly forbids the
> > left-parenthesis reader macro from recognizing anything but a right parenthesis,
> > it is clear that it does not *require* conforming Common Lisp
> > implementations to implement the left-parenthesis reader macro such
> > that it can be copied around to other characters.
>
> this is your faulty interpretation of a faulty paragraph.
> and this is false.
No need to argue about this. If Kent or Barry (or any other X3J13 participants)
care to weigh in on this.
>
> > If you try your examples on Allegro, Corman Lisp, or CLisp, you will
> > see that they differ in what they do.
>
> if so, they are not conforming to Common Lisp Standard.
Well, either the standard is misleading and the major Lisp vendors have
been mislead to producing non-conforming implementations despite having
years to correct the situation, or the standard is correct, the Lisp vendors
are following it, and you are incorrect.
>
> >>>Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
> >>i think this is not the right way.
> > Nevertheless, it is the right way.
> loop
LOOP is very powerful macro, but I don't think it is applicable.
ilias
> * at news wrote:
>
>>correct.
>>until you make those 2 conformant function-calls:
>
>>(set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
>>(set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
>
>>then they *have to*.
>
> No, they don't, you fool. try *READING WHAT HE SAID* In particular,
> he wrote:
what he said is irrelevant.
> If you write code such that it depends upon the definition of (
> (open-paren) being able to be meaningfully copied to {
> (open-curly-brace), then that code is not conforming to the
> specification and is not guaranteed to be portable amongst Common
> Lisp implementations. Conforming Common Lisp implementations are
> not required to interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
>
> And, just perhaps, he meant what he said.
out of context-placement of a faulty interpretation of a faulty (or at
minimum misleading) remark in a specification.
>>the paragraph is misleading.
>
> Wrong, it is precisely correct. Indeed, it is part of the definition
> of what is correct.
its misleading. i've placed arguments. you simply talk.
>>should be correct: "...until a right parenthesis (or a char which has
>>been setted to the syntax from the right-parenthesis) is found in the
>>input stream."
>
> Wrong.
its right. its proofable. just try it.
>>"right parenthesis" stands for "the function right parenthesis".
>>this function can be 'carried' by nearly any char.
> Wrong.
maybe.
but in essence right.
>>this is your faulty interpretation of a faulty paragraph.
>>and this is false.
> Wrong.
right
>>if so, they are not conforming to Common Lisp Standard.
> Wrong.
right
>
> --tim
nice game.
have to play that long time.
essence:
(set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
(set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
this functions are definitely conformant.
ilias
> * at news wrote:
>
>
>>As an experienced LISP-coder you should write it in about 5".
>
>
> Indeed, and I pointed you at some sample code which uses
> READ-DELIMITED-LIST, which you should easily be able to generalise.
> If you want us to solve your specific problems for you then you can
> probably work out the address to contact to discuss consultancy rates.
thats why you start with this nonsens here.
ilias
> "ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D725AFC...@pontos.net...
>
>>Joe Marshall wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>Conforming Common Lisp implementations are not required to
>>>interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
>>
>>correct.
>>until you make those 2 conformant function-calls:
>>
>>(set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
>>(set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
>>
>>then they *have to*.
> Why do you think this?
i'm talking about _{_ and _}_, which is conformant.
you are talking about _{_ and *)*, which is irrelevant to me.
>>>>i think this is not the right way.
>>>Nevertheless, it is the right way.
>>loop
> LOOP is very powerful macro, but I don't think it is applicable.
i meant: loop, we will got a loop:
right way.
not the right way.
right way.
and so on.
so
loop
Matthew Danish
> Joe Marshall wrote:
> ...
> > Conforming Common Lisp implementations are not required to
> > interpret strings of the form "{a b c}" as lists.
>
> correct.
> until you make those 2 conformant function-calls:
>
> (set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
> (set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
>
> then they *have to*.
>
> > One could make the argument that LispWorks is in error accepting the form
> > "{a b c}" as a list. Section 2.4.1 of the hyperspec states:
> >
> > `The left-parenthesis initiates reading of a list. read is called
> > recursively to read successive objects until a right parenthesis
> > is found in the input stream.'
>
> the paragraph is misleading.
>
> should be correct: "...until a right parenthesis (or a char which has
> been setted to the syntax from the right-parenthesis) is found in the
> input stream."
When reading the Hyperspec (or any standard, for that matter), you must
first assume that it is correct, and secondly assume that what it
describes is the minimum needed for correctness in an implementation.
(There are chapters describing what is an extension to CL, and I won't
get into that). My rationale for this assumption is that it is a
*standard*, and that while decisions in it may seem arbitrary, _IF_ an
implementation/program wishes to conform to ANSI CL _THEN_ it must
implement/use what is described in the standard. (That the standard
also documents conformance (chapter 1.5) is subsidary to this).
The consequence of this assumption (by contraposition) is that _IF_ an
implementation/program implements/uses what is _NOT_ described in the
standard _THEN_ that implementation/usage of what is not described in
the standard is not ANSI CL.
So if you are not interested in the behavior ANSI CL describes, and are
not interested in correcting your mistakes, then you may as well stop
reading here, since that is what I'm going to discuss.
As you can see, ANSI CL states that "READ is called recursively to read
successive objects until a right parenthesis is found in the input
stream." It does not say that READ should be called recursively to read
successive objects until a character with the same reader-macro function
as #\) is found. That an implementation might use this to obtain the
same behavior is orthogonal. That you can exploit this behavior on said
implementation for other purposes is not stated by the standard, and
hence is not conformant. No other implementations are required to
exhibit this behavior in order to be ANSI CL compatible. If they wish
to be "LispWorks-compatible" that is another matter.
>
> "right parenthesis" stands for "the function right parenthesis".
>
> this function can be 'carried' by nearly any char.
>
> this is LISP.
>
> this is *beautyfull*
>
While it may seem "right" to you, it is not according to the standard.
If you want to discuss what is and what is not the case in ANSI CL, the
standard is your ultimate reference. If you want to discuss what you
feel is better, then make sure to distinguish that fact so that people
do not inadvertantly confuse your statements with statements about ANSI
CL.
If you want to clarify your thinking about the behavior of the reader in
ANSI CL, I recommend implementing a parser according to the algorithm
specified in Hyperspec chapter 2.2. It is a good way to get a feel for
the problems faced by the designers of ANSI CL, given what they were
trying to accomplish. It is also a good exercise in coding, if you were
looking for one.
>
> > But regardless of whether or not you think this explicitly forbids the
> > left-parenthesis reader macro from recognizing anything but a right parenthesis,
> > it is clear that it does not *require* conforming Common Lisp
> > implementations to implement the left-parenthesis reader macro such
> > that it can be copied around to other characters.
>
> this is your faulty interpretation of a faulty paragraph.
> and this is false.
>
> > If you try your examples on Allegro, Corman Lisp, or CLisp, you will
> > see that they differ in what they do.
>
> if so, they are not conforming to Common Lisp Standard.
> > conforming program n. a program, used to emphasize the fact that the program depends for its correctness only upon documented aspects of Common Lisp, and can therefore be expected to run correctly in any conforming implementation.
>
> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
>
> is a documented function.
>
> >>>Take a look at the function READ-DELIMITED-LIST for an example of how to do it.
> >>i think this is not the right way.
> > Nevertheless, it is the right way.
> loop
>
--
; Matthew Danish <mda...@andrew.cmu.edu>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."
Paul F. Dietz
> i'm talking about _{_ and _}_, which is conformant.
>
> you are talking about _{_ and *)*, which is irrelevant to me.
Coby, have you changed your opinion on this person yet?
'Ilias', read the standard again, this time with your
head removed from your anus. And learn how to capitalize
sentences properly, you illiterate buffoon.
Paul
ilias
Yes, teacher, i will.
ilias
> "ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D72548E...@pontos.net...
>
>
>>so, why don't you code it on the fly?
>
> - You won't learn anything if I write it.
> - It takes time to do this and time to test it.
thank you for your time.
>
> (defun |[-reader| (stream char)
> (declare (ignore char))
> (prog1 (funcall (get-macro-character #\,) stream #\,)
> (unless (char= (read-char stream t nil t) #\])
> (error 'reader-error))))
>
> (set-macro-character #\[ #'|[-reader| nil)
> (set-macro-character #\] (get-macro-character #\) nil))
seems to work.
i'll make a break, drink a cup of coffee.
i think i've found a 2-line-solution for this problem, which works
clearer than the above code.
i'm just so curious if someone knows the solution.
Tim Bradshaw
> its misleading. i've placed arguments. you simply talk.
> essence:
> (set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( ) => T
> (set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) ) => T
> this functions are definitely conformant.
Good. Well, I'm glad you know best. We all bow to your superior
knowledge of course. Silly of me to have somehow missed this in all
these years of working with the language.
--tim
Richard Krush
> > "tschernobyll" refers to a town in Russia.
>
> That is 'Chernobyl' in English. The word means 'wormwood'
> according to Tarkovsky.
>
I don't see how that can be, it has nothing in common with either 'worm'
or 'wood', it's more like 'black-town'. Don't quote me on that, however,
since I am not an expert of etymology at all. My reasoning is that
'cherno' is derived from Ukrainian word (BTW, Chernobyl is really in
Ukraine, not Russia) 'chorno', which means 'black' and 'byl' is some kind
of a suffix, I guess, since I don't know any similar words.
Regards,
Richard
P.S. Sorry for an off-topic article.
--
Richard Krushelnitskiy "I know not with what weapons World War III will
rkrush (at) gmx.net be fought, but World War IV will be fought with
http://rkrush.cjb.net sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein
Joe Marshall
"ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D7276DA...@pontos.net...
>
> seems to work.
I tested it under Lispworks, Allegro, CLisp, and Corman.
I believe it to be portable.
>
> i think i've found a 2-line-solution for this problem, which works
> clearer than the above code.
Please post it.
ilias
...many things. sorry for not answering in detail.
can you (or anyone else) please answer me this question:
must a conforming CommonLisp implementation provide this function?:
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
if yes, why?
if no, why?
ilias
i interprete this as:
"no, they are not"
try to concentrate only at this question, please.
Tim Bradshaw
> try to concentrate only at this question, please.
I'm afraid I really can't be bothered. You win, enjoy your life.
--tim
Joe Marshall
"ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D727A72...@pontos.net...
>
> must a conforming CommonLisp implementation provide this function?:
>
> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
>
Of course it must. I don't think anyone denies that.
What we deny is your assertion that copying the syntax of open-paren
and close-paren to another pair of characters will make the target
pair behave as if they were list delimiters.
ilias
teacher, i've learned something.
"tschernobyll" refers to a town in Russia.
this is wrong !
Chernobyl is a town in Ukraine.
sv0f
>Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>> And learn how to capitalize
>> sentences properly, you illiterate buffoon.
>
>Yes, teacher, i will.
^
???
sv0f
>i think i've found a 2-line-solution for this problem, which works
>clearer than the above code.
Let me guess -- your email message was too small to contain it?
ilias
???
ilias
i don't understand.
please clarify.
quasi
On Sun, 01 Sep 2002 23:21:46 +0300, ilias <at_...@pontos.net> wrote:
>Joe Marshall wrote:
>> "ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D72548E...@pontos.net...
>>[snip]
>> (set-macro-character #\] (get-macro-character #\) nil))
>
>seems to work.
>
>i'll make a break, drink a cup of coffee.
>
>i think i've found a 2-line-solution for this problem, which works
>clearer than the above code.
>
>i'm just so curious if someone knows the solution.
The english definitely seems to have undergone some improvement. I
think he is just pulling you people's legs.
quasi
Jens Axel Søgaard
> sv0f wrote:
> > Let me guess -- your email message was too small to contain it?
>
> i don't understand.
> please clarify.
He is talking about your margin. It is too small.
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
ilias
still don't get it.
ilias
this is only as i'm relaxed.
sv0f
Don't worry, I'm working on a 100 page program that will clear
up this READ-DELIMITED-LIST once and for all. It'll be ready
in about ten years.
Coby Beck
"The Seventeenth-Century French mathematician Pierre de Fermat wrote in the
margin of his copy of Arithmetica by Diophantus, near the section on the
Pythagorean Theorem (a squared plus b squared equals c squared), 'x ^ n + y
^ n = z ^ n - it cannot be solved with non-zero integers x, y, z for any
exponent n greater than 2. I have found a truly marvelous proof, which this
margin is too small to contain.'
This was left as an enigmatic riddle after Fermat's death and it became a
famous, unsolved problem of number theory for over 350 years."
(quote from http://emsh.calarts.edu/~mathart/sw/Color_3D_Prints.html but is
very common)
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Erik Naggum
| If I did I would.
Then do you not voice your supprot for his current behavior by attacking
those who criticize it. Or do it by mail so you do not aggravate people by
criticizing the critics just because you feel holier than everybody else.
| I do not understand people who are so eager to call others idiots and
| incompetents.
Yes, you do, you only choose to do so on different occasions. You go out of
your way to accuse those who do something you do not like of ill will and
hostility when nonesuch exists and you exacerbate every conflict situation
by attacking those who defend something, making it impossible to establish
better relations and to send the proper signals to the troublemakers, on
whose side you have consistently placed yourself because you hate people who
call others idiots and incompetents so much that you just have to speak up
and make even more trouble.
| Actually, I do understand it, I just think it is an extremely negative part
| of human nature rooted in weakness and cruelty.
Yet you prefer to engage in exactly the same tactics against those you think
deserve it over doing something constructive. If you do not understand
this, you are an even less palatable hypocrite than I already think you are.
| It is that part I detest so much in the academic world, the glee people take
| in belittling and humiliating others and the false comfort and pride they
| take in being accepted and praised by their community.
Ah. You are the Revenger against ills that do not exist but which arise out
of your hypersensitivity towards past suffering. Your detesting something
does not make it come into being. People who are emotionally screwed-up
tend to see threats and dangers that are not there because they are reminded
of what happened to them in the past and react to their memories, not to the
reality in which they actually live. It seems that you are reminded of what
you detest so much every time someone speaks up against the /real/ idiots in
the world because some /non-idiots/ were unfairly harrassed in your past, and
my guess is that that person was yourself. So instead of just letting people
speak up against the obnoxious idiots, you sit on your hands until someone
speaks up and then you attack that person, instead, making the idiots more
welcome and destructive because they have a "supporter" of their cause.
Please realize that just because /you/ feel better after elevating yourself
above those who criticize others, you have not actually improved anything by
criticizing them in worse manners. Your desire to tell people how bad they
are reflect on your own personality more than anything else. Other people
criticize people for what they /do/ and /stop/ when the actions improve, but
you choose to impute ill will and evil intentions to people on a scale that
is truly evil because you harbor ill will against people long after you were
offended based on your /own/ moralistic view of /them/ beyond what you think
they have done. You make the evil mistake of thinking you can do any harm
you want to others because of your impression of them. Lynch mobs had that
same warped ethics that anything goes as long as you are insanely furious
enough about something. And you see your evil in others when they simply
criticize others for actions that are /actually/ bad. Your own reprehensible
character speaks up against an evil that you should seek to correct primarily
in yourself and keep out of public view.
| Putting other people down is never about anything accept trying to elevate
| your own self image.
Your rebellion against this entails putting other people down. You are very
obviously on a mission to elevate your self-image when you detest ills that
you impute to others and speak up to criticize what is not actually there.
| Well, that is off on a bit of a tangent, sorry (and kind of preachy, looking
| back over it) but it is true, so I will leave it as is.
Your lack of insight is alarming. You do not see the similiarity of yourself
to that which you detest. You have even become what you detest in others
when you work so hard to put others down for what you believe is putting
down, but which is far more honest and less sinister on the part of those
/you/ unfairly blame for evils they have not committed. A mere irritation
with the presistency of obnoxious lunatics you interpret as an academic
put-down intended to elevate the critic.
You clearly have issues, my hypercritical friend, but this is not the forum
to act on them, or even discuss them.
| I think dialogue with ilias could have been salvaged with a few less people
| so eager to be rude about it.
Then engage in that instead of your standard preaching against those who
speak up against the things /they/ do not like when you do that yourself for
thing /you/ do not like. Do what you think is right if you desire to speak
up against those who do something you think needs to be criticized. This
becomes more and more important the more you criticize criticism over
actions. You attempt, in effect, to curb people's ability to criticize what
they do not like while you reserve that right to yourself. This is a symptom
of a troubled soul. Please bother someone else someplace else. That same
advice goes to the target of the criticism you scolded. You two have more
in common than you like in that regard, too.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum
| You may well be right (but obviously, I tend to disagree.) I believe that
| more often than not, our enemies are the creation of our own actions.
Then take this wisdom and use it to create fewer enemies.
Erik Naggum
| How do you know somebody is hating you if you do not know him?
To know somebody has two different meanings. If you said you hated me in
this newsgroup, would I thereby know you? Hardly. The people who have come
out of nowhere to express hatred and anger think they know me, however, in
the sense that they spout an enormous amount of drivel that they /invented/
about me based on what they think they saw. Clearly, these people are quite
insane, but what does it mean to /know/ somebody except that you think that
what you have concluded about them is true?
Coby Beck
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in message
news:3D727441...@dls.net...
> ilias wrote:
>
> > i'm talking about _{_ and _}_, which is conformant.
> >
> > you are talking about _{_ and *)*, which is irrelevant to me.
>
>
> Coby, have you changed your opinion on this person yet?
No, but that probably does not mean quite what you think it means ;)
I marvel at Joe's patience, though... (and Tim's too, even if he finally
lost it)
Coby Beck
"Marc Spitzer" <ma...@oscar.eng.cv.net> wrote in message
news:slrnan33s...@oscar.eng.cv.net...
> In article <akru8b$24bv$1...@otis.netspace.net.au>, Coby Beck wrote:
> >
> > "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in message
> >> Coby Beck wrote:
> >>
> >> > Speak for yourself. And even if it is your conclusion,
> >> > what possible good is served by stating it?
> >>
> >> He is clearly laboring under serious delusions of competence.
> >> If he's not entirely insane then pointing this out may encourage
> >> him to go elsewhere.
> >
> > You may well be right (but obviously, I tend to disagree.)
> > I believe that more often than not, our enemies are the
> > creation of our own actions.
> your actions just because other people will become your enemies?
Though they do exist, situations where doing "The Right Thing" unavoidably
creates enemies are uncommon. But the short answer to your question is no.
> It is impossable to go through life with out making enemies. You may
> make them for the best or worst reasons, but you will make them.
This is true. But is it always necessary to engage them? This gets a
little away from the issue of stubborn newbies and insulted, angry experts.
I would hope few people elevate ilias to the stature "Enemy of lisp"
Erik Naggum
| This is true. But is it always necessary to engage them?
You seem to have a knack for engaging the critics. Why is that? Would they
not, according to your own standards, be likely to be /less/ hostile if they
did not always have someone like you come up and brand them as immoral and
evil and whatnot when they lose their patience after spending a lot of time
trying to help someone? Have you no empathy for those who find that their
goodwill is abused by these morons, only for the morons who so abuse it when
they are criticized for it? Perhaps you create more morons by defending them?
Paul F. Dietz
> No, but that probably does not mean quite what you think it means ;)
Ah, ok. :)
Paul
ilias
thank you!
ilias
i'm not a good target for your 'knowledge-games'.
i simply don't have many knowledge.
you have to find another target for playing your intelectual 'trivial
pursuit'.
except you enjoy to play with the 'weak'.
if so, i'm happy to be your private 'show-your-knowledge-clown'.
c hore
> I do not understand
> people who are so eager to call others idiots and incompetents.
>
> much in the academic world, the glee people take in belittling and
> humiliating others and the false comfort and pride they take in being
> about anything accept trying to elevate your own self image.
Does the academic world have a lock on this. Is this not true
in general, such as in professional and political world.
Or is it really more acute in the academic world, because
of the measures of success in that world. In non-academic
world, the measures are amount of money, or service rendered,
or economic or political power. In academic world, at least
for the masses of the practitioners, it is...amount of
peer recognition, in particular, of one's smartness? If so,
how can you blame the practitioners entirely; the system
practically dictates the individual behavior, does it not.
And it has been like this throughout the ages, has it not.
Coby Beck
"Erik Naggum" <er...@naggum.no> wrote in message
news:32399083...@naggum.no...
> * "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca>
> | If I did I would.
>
> Then do you not voice your supprot for his current behavior by attacking
> those who criticize it.
I didn't. If you read what I wrote a little more carefully I'm sure you
will see that. I did not voice support for his behaviour, I did not attack
anyone, I did not respond to a criticism of his behaviour.
> Or do it by mail so you do not aggravate people by
> criticizing the critics just because you feel holier than everybody
else.
If you were sincere about this advice, why did you not follow it yourself
and reply to me via email? (I don't say you should have, but it follows
from your argument to me)
>
> | I do not understand people who are so eager to call others idiots and
> | incompetents.
>
> Yes, you do, you only choose to do so on different occasions. You go
out of
> your way to accuse those who do something you do not like of ill will
and
> hostility when nonesuch exists and you exacerbate every conflict
situation
> by attacking those who defend something, making it impossible to
establish
> better relations and to send the proper signals to the troublemakers, on
> whose side you have consistently placed yourself because you hate people
who
> call others idiots and incompetents so much that you just have to speak
up
> and make even more trouble.
There is nothing in the above paragraph I can even begin to debate about.
My only answer is "No, you are wrong on every point" Again, you will have
to show me things I have written that have given you this impression so I
can correct your misunderstandings or apologise for what I have said. On a
strictly logical point, your assertions have no connection to the sentence
you have quoted.
> | Actually, I do understand it, I just think it is an extremely negative
part
> | of human nature rooted in weakness and cruelty.
>
> Yet you prefer to engage in exactly the same tactics against those you
think
> deserve it over doing something constructive.
You are completely incorrect in this assertion, it is however not likely to
be productive discussing it.
> | It is that part I detest so much in the academic world, the glee people
take
> | in belittling and humiliating others and the false comfort and pride
they
> | take in being accepted and praised by their community.
>
> Ah. You are the Revenger against ills that do not exist but which arise
out
> of your hypersensitivity towards past suffering. Your detesting
something
> does not make it come into being.
Nor does your denying it keep it from existing. Why don't you simply make a
point, such as "I do not believe this is a problem in the academic world"
instead of all this fabrication of what I am thinking and why? It would
make it possible to have a discussion with you.
> People who are emotionally screwed-up
> tend to see threats and dangers that are not there because they are
reminded
> of what happened to them in the past and react to their memories, not to
the
> reality in which they actually live. It seems that you are reminded of
what
> you detest so much every time someone speaks up against the /real/
idiots in
> the world because some /non-idiots/ were unfairly harrassed in your
past, and
> my guess is that that person was yourself.
[snip]
Sorry, incorrect. As the rest of your long speculations follow from this
premise, I will not bother to respond to it directly.
> | I think dialogue with ilias could have been salvaged with a few less
people
> | so eager to be rude about it.
>
> Then engage in that instead of your standard preaching against those who
> speak up against the things /they/ do not like when you do that yourself
for
> thing /you/ do not like.
Well, I think this little bit started because I was bothered by Paul's use
of "we" in saying "we have concluded you are an idiot" or something. I
doubt I would have replied except for that. Paul did not seem to feel
attacked by me, I don't know why you feel threatened.
> Do what you think is right if you desire to speak
> up against those who do something you think needs to be criticized.
I have been "practicing what I am preaching" wrt ilias, so your advice is
unnecessary.
Coby Beck
> * "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca>
> | This is true. But is it always necessary to engage them?
>
> You seem to have a knack for engaging the critics. Why is that? Would
they
> not, according to your own standards, be likely to be /less/ hostile if
they
> did not always have someone like you come up and brand them as immoral
and
> evil and whatnot when they lose their patience after spending a lot of
time
> trying to help someone?
Do you consider all criticism of personal behaviour to be a branding of
evil? Is my saying, "I do not think it is right to do that" equivalent to
"you are immoral and evil" in your eyes?
If so, why do you not accept that I take "you are an idiot" as a hostile
statement?
ilias
> "ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D7276DA...@pontos.net...
>>i think i've found a 2-line-solution for this problem, which works
>>clearer than the above code.
>
;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
;;; The Challenge of Nested Macros
;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
(set-syntax-from-char #\[ #\,)
(set-syntax-from-char #\] #\Space)
;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
;;; this enables the following writing-style, which clarifies
;;; optically the level of the macro-variables.
;;; [s1] = ,symbol = evaluate in first pass
;;; [[s2-1] [s2-2] = ,,symbol = evaluate in second pass
(defmacro alias (short long)
`(defmacro [short] (&rest args)
`( [ '[long] [@args] ] )))
;;; simple test code:
(alias df defun)
(df alias-test (x y z) (* x y z ) )
(alias-test 2 3 5)
;;; As ] is only whitespace, u can move them around as you like.
;;; this is a little bit dangerous. Keep in mind that:
;;; `( ['[long]] [@args] ) ==
;;; `( ['[long] [@args] ]) ==
;;; `( ,',long ,@args )
;;;
;;; I imagine the backquote '`' as a gun, which shots over lines
;;; and the 'ball' destroys one level of [].
;;; what happens in the above test-code:
;;; 1st shot:
;;; (defmacro df (&rest args)
;;; `( '[long] [@args] )))
;;; 2nd shot:
;;; (defmacro df (&rest args)
;;; ( defun (x y z) (* x y z) )))
;;;
;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
;;; Tested with Allegro.
;;; Should run on any conformant CL.
;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
;;; ilias - 2002-09-02 - #V0.1
;;; ------------------------------------------------------------
any questions / corrections?
lets discuss!
ilias
> "ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message
> news:3D728CC7...@pontos.net...
>
>>Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
>>
>>>"ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>>
> news:3D728145...@pontos.net...
>
>>>>sv0f wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Let me guess -- your email message was too small to contain it?
>>>>
>>>>i don't understand.
>>>>please clarify.
>>>
>>>
>>>He is talking about your margin. It is too small.
>>
>>still don't get it.
>>
>
>
> "The Seventeenth-Century French mathematician Pierre de Fermat wrote in the
> margin of his copy of Arithmetica by Diophantus, near the section on the
> Pythagorean Theorem (a squared plus b squared equals c squared), 'x ^ n + y
> ^ n = z ^ n - it cannot be solved with non-zero integers x, y, z for any
> exponent n greater than 2. I have found a truly marvelous proof, which this
> margin is too small to contain.'
> This was left as an enigmatic riddle after Fermat's death and it became a
> famous, unsolved problem of number theory for over 350 years."
aha. i understand now.
is the problem still unsolved?
what do you believe. did he found the proof?
Erik Naggum
| Do you consider all criticism of personal behaviour to be a branding of
| evil?
No. I consider your criticism of those who criticize bad behavior to be
branding of evil since you make broad, sweeping claims about those you
criticize. I fail to see how this could not have been communicated clearly,
so I take your response to be intentionally deflective.
Erik Naggum
| I didn't. If you read what I wrote a little more carefully I'm sure you
| will see that. I did not voice support for his behaviour, I did not attack
| anyone, I did not respond to a criticism of his behaviour.
Coby, please quit being such a snotty arrogant shithead and start to think.
Of /course/ I read you carefully. It is /because/ I read you carefully that
I respond to you in the first place. Had I read you less carefully, I would
have kill-filed you for your immense lack of contributions to this forum and
you incessant whining about the behavior of critics and never of those who
misbehave in the first place.
But let me tell you something you must have missed in your life. When a
person is criticized for something, he will interpret any and all /public/
criticism of his critics as implicit support. If you do not intend this dual
function with your criticism, send it by mail. By making the criticism
public, you make it clear that you want to distance yourself from the
criticism, and there is no way you can escape the consequence that you
thereby support that which is being criticized. If you think you should be
able to escape such an obvious consequence, you need to say so up front.
For instance, you just /had/ to comment negatively on me. That shows that
you know how to do it, yet you chose only to criticize the critic. You have
done this very often. There is no way you can possibly hope to escape the
conclusion that you are on the "victim's" side of the criticism and scold
only those who want this to be a forum that is valuable to people who are
not idiots. That makes you strongly pro-idiot. If you are not, speak up
when you see something you do not like other than just criticism of those
who speak up.
| If you were sincere about this advice, why did you not follow it yourself
| and reply to me via email? (I don't say you should have, but it follows
| from your argument to me)
No, it does not. You would realize this if your main concern was to
understand and not to throw blame away from yourself.
| Again, you will have to show me things I have written that have given you
| this impression so I can correct your misunderstandings or apologise for
| what I have said.
How about everything you have ever written to me in this newsgroup?
You have attacked me most unfairly on so numerous occasions and are so
unapologetic about your lopsided ethics that I consider you an evil person.
Your apologies would not help. You are destructive towards this forum when
you always criticize those who want the noisy idiots to keep quiet. You are
part of the problem.
| Why don't you simply make a point, such as "I do not believe this is a
| problem in the academic world" instead of all this fabrication of what I am
| thinking and why? It would make it possible to have a discussion with you.
I am utterly amazed. It is a problem in the academic world. This is not
the academic world. That you are reminded of a problem in the academic
world when you see an idiot get criticized is your personal problem and you
should stop bothering other people with it. I suggest you seek professional
help to get over your problems with rejection in academia. It was immensely
educational to see you speak of what you actually detest. It has nothing to
do with this forum at all. That you should even bring up what you detest in
"academia" is very interesting. It shows that you never got over it and are
constantly bothered by memories of it. That you need to distance yourself
from all /perceived/ instances of inclusion in such criticism explains so
much about your personality as you have shown it to us here. Please think
about what I have written to you instead of dismissing it out of hand.
| Well, I think this little bit started because I was bothered by Paul's use
| of "we" in saying "we have concluded you are an idiot" or something.
That you think you would be included had you not spoken is pathological.
That you need to speak in order to distance yourself from others is likewise
not a sign of a healthy mind.
| I doubt I would have replied except for that. Paul did not seem to feel
| attacked by me, I don't know why you feel threatened.
You keep imputing intent to people where you should not. I wonder why. I
do not feel threatened. I consider you damaging to this forum because you
always rise to object when somebody makes a serious disturbance and he gets
criticized for it. You make things far worse with your incredulous desire
to speak up just to be excluded from a rhetorical "we". It looks demented.
Everybody knows that a rhetorical "we" is not all-inclusive. Lots of people
never feel included by rhetorical "wes" and never have to speak up about it.
I suggest that you become one of those people by getting a better grip on
what you really object to and get over whatever horrible thing happened to
you that made you need to make such distance.
| I have been "practicing what I am preaching" wrt ilias, so your advice is
| unnecessary.
Then you both practice and preach hypocrisy. I find that fascinating.
Coby Beck
> * "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca>
> | Do you consider all criticism of personal behaviour to be a
> | branding of evil?
>
> No. I consider your criticism of those who criticize bad
> behavior to be branding of evil since you make broad, sweeping
> claims about those you criticize. I fail to see how this
> could not have been communicated clearly, so I take your response
> to be intentionally deflective.
It was not. You have yet to show me anything I have written that supports
your characterization of it. Out of respect for your own brand of integrity
that you profess and exhibit, I have reviewed what I wrote recently and do
not find any broad sweeping claims about any individuals. I have made
claims about social phenomena and its relation to individual behaviours and
I stand by them. Is it the fact that I said (loose-quote "rudeness and
hostility in this intellectual forum is rooted in weakness and cruelty
similar to what is often found in academia") what makes you leap to your
conclusions? If so, we will probably just have to agree to disagree unless
you can present some points not based on false presumptions about who I am
and what I think.
ilias
...
> you incessant whining about the behavior of critics and never of those who
> misbehave in the first place.
> you always criticize those who want the noisy idiots to keep quiet. You are
> part of the problem.
> world when you see an idiot get criticized is your personal problem and you
> Then you both practice and preach hypocrisy. I find that fascinating.
now i understand the bahaviour of 'xah'.
you are a *very* *very* unfriendly person.
fascinating unfriendly !
ilias
ilias (thats me).
may someone has detected, that the idiot ilias doesn't need 'protection'.
may someone has detected, that 'Coby Beck' tries to 'protect' some
people in the c.l.l.-community from outing themselves as *total*
socially incopetent 'idiots'.
i don't know this unfriendly person 'Erik Naggum', but i know that he
has lost control in what he's writing, as he's lost control over his egoism.
I ask friendly: may someone who knows him drops him an email so he wakes up.
I think that everyone has lost control sometimes somehow. Me too, of course.
P.S.: I write this way, cause i expect that he don't receive my messages.
Craig Brozefsky
> as i said, i 'do my best' to 'assist' the people to out theirselves as
> 'idiots' without sense for their limits.
Some would call this the definition of a troll.
Be wary that in the process of assisting others to out themselves as
idiots you don't assist yourself in the same.
<plonk>
--
Sincerely,
Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
Erik Naggum
| You have yet to show me anything I have written that supports your
| characterization of it.
Look, you idiot. The evidence is right there in front of you -- it is your
own articles. You should know what you write and what you do. Demanding
that you be shown what you have yourself written so that you can be relieved
of the pain of revisiting your own writings is just being equally obnoxious
as the idiots you defend from criticism.
| Out of respect for your own brand of integrity that you profess and exhibit,
| I have reviewed what I wrote recently and do not find any broad sweeping
| claims about any individuals.
Why am I not surprised. You have already shown us that you do not
understand that publicly criticizing a critic is tantamount to defending
that which is criticized and that everybody else see your actions this way.
| If so, we will probably just have to agree to disagree unless you can present
| some points not based on false presumptions about who I am and what I think.
Are you finally beginning to learn? That would be welcome. Your own need
to criticize others is based on your false presumptions about them. That
you now seem to indicate that you do not like this when it happens to
yourself could be a good sign -- that you may yet understand /why/ your
incessant whining about the behavior of critics or your stupid need to
distance yourself from rhetorical "wes" is unwelcome because of the many
layers of implicit accusations that are based on /your/ false presumptions.
From what you write about what you "detest" from academia, which is utterly
irrelevant here, I finally begin to understand your need to harrass those
who /you/ see as transgressors without realizing your own role and function
as an harrassing contributor to the hostile environment that you seem to
"detest". Less hostility on /your/ part against the critics would go a long
way to decrease the /expectation/ that any exhaustion of patience will be
met with similarly stupid distancing on your part.
Go through your own "contributions" to this forum, and you, too, will find
that you spend more time complaining about other people than you do anything
useful. Those /you/ criticize have at the very least tried to help those /they/
criticize before they criticize anyone. That is not true for you, so you do
not actually have the same right to criticize anyone. Losing your patience
with someone after you have made an effort to understand and to explain is
tolerable -- it is only human. Mounting holier-than-thou wars against those
who lose their patience because you had a bad experience in academia is not
tolerable -- you should seek help to get over your bad experiences when you
notice that they influence your actions and your perception negatively.
But the fact that you refuse to consider anything I tell you is sufficient
evidence that you are so convinced that you are better than those you
criticize that there is no hope for you, and that you are a waste of time.
Takehiko Abe
> >> And I think that most of the people who are my enemies have never met
> >> me, they hate me because of the groups I belong to(american for example).
> >
> > How do you know somebody is hating you if you do not know him?
> > Not because the person happens to live in Baghdad I hope.
>
> Well I was in the army durring durring desert storm, my unit did not
> get deployed though. And there might be some people who hate the
> American military in Baghdad.
There must be some people in Baghdad who hate US military.
But I think it is wrong to assume that they hate _you_
because the fact that you were in the Army does not mean
you are eq to the American miritary.
>
> And I am Jewish, so lots of people hate me for that.
They hate you and see you as their enemy without knowing you.
--
This message was not sent to you unsolicited.
Takehiko Abe
> but what does it mean to /know/ somebody except that you think that
> what you have concluded about them is true?
That whatever I have concluded about somebody might not be true makes
it dangerous to assume somebody is my enemy. This is more so, the less
I know about them.
ilias
ilias (thats me).
may someone has detected, that the idiot ilias doesn't need 'protection'.
may someone has detected, that 'Coby Beck' tries to 'protect' some
people in the c.l.l.-community from outing themselves as *total*
socially incopetent 'idiots'.
i don't know this unfriendly person 'Erik Naggum', but i know that he
has lost control in what he's writing, as he's lost control over his egoism.
I ask friendly: may someone who knows him drops him an email so he wakes up.
I think that everyone has lost control sometimes somehow. Me too, of course.
P.S.: I write this way, cause i expect that he don't receive my messages.
ilias
> "ilias" <at_...@pontos.net> wrote in message news:3D727A72...@pontos.net...
>
>>must a conforming CommonLisp implementation provide this function?:
>>
>>http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/f_set_sy.htm#set-syntax-from-char
>>
>
> Of course it must. I don't think anyone denies that.
ok. we are a step further:
(set-syntax-from-char #\{ #\( )
(set-syntax-from-char #\} #\) )
is conforming CommonLisp code.
the function *accepts* #\( and #\) as source parameter
> What we deny is your assertion that copying the syntax of open-paren
> and close-paren to another pair of characters will make the target
> pair behave as if they were list delimiters.
you cannot deny this.
It is a fact:
After the above conforming CommonLisp code, the character {} behave like
list delimiters (at least they should, as Lispworks & Allegro do).
Until here we should agree.
Now its your turn.
The function *and* of course the results the functions produces are
conformant.
What *exactly* 'overrides' the conformancy of the function
set-syntax-from-char?