Access the the second return value?
Richard James Panturis Giuly
value of a function like gethash. Could someone help me out?
(I hope I'm not bothering you people with all these questions.)
--
ricky
rgi...@surfsouth.com
Friedrich Dominicus
> For some reason I can't find how to access the second return
> value of a function like gethash. Could someone help me out?
>
>
> (I hope I'm not bothering you people with all these questions.)
example :
CL-USER 5 : 1 > (setf ht (make-hash-table))
#<EQL Hash Table{0} 204EB5C4>
CL-USER 6 : 1 > (setf (gethash 1 ht) "one")
"one"
CL-USER 7 : 1 > (setf (gethash 2 ht) "two")
"two"
CL-USER 8 : 1 > (gethash 2 ht)
"two"
T
CL-USER 9 : 1 > (multiple-value-bind (item present?)
(gethash 2 ht)
(list item present?))
("two" T)
There are a bunch of other multiple-.... functions for different
purposes.
Regards
Friedrich
--
for e-mail reply remove all after .com
Martti Halminen
>
> For some reason I can't find how to access the second return
> value of a function like gethash. Could someone help me out?
multiple-value-bind, multiple-value-call, multiple-value-setq
etc.
--
Paul Foley
> CL-USER 9 : 1 > (multiple-value-bind (item present?)
Argh! I am the only one that's bothered by this godawful Schemish use
of `?' in symbols for "predicate" functions/values?
--
Cogito ergo I'm right and you're wrong. -- Blair Houghton
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(#\@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
David Bakhash
> For some reason I can't find how to access the second return
> value of a function like gethash. Could someone help me out?
it's #'nth-value:
http://www.xanalys.com/software_tools/reference/HyperSpec/Body/mac_nth-value.html
dave
Friedrich Dominicus
> On 28 Jun 2000 10:43:21 +0200, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>
> > CL-USER 9 : 1 > (multiple-value-bind (item present?)
>
> Argh! I am the only one that's bothered by this godawful Schemish use
> of `?' in symbols for "predicate" functions/values?
matter of taste. I have to admit I like ! and ? more than in case one
I did not even know and what's or p or is it -p in the latter. But if
you feel unhappy with that read it as
presentp ;-)
Regard
Tim Bradshaw
> multiple-value-bind, multiple-value-call, multiple-value-setq
> etc.
Also nth-value is very useful
--tim
Erik Naggum
| Argh! I am the only one that's bothered by this godawful Schemish
| use of `?' in symbols for "predicate" functions/values?
No, but it's a very useful thing, this little question mark, as it
communicates there's little hope of getting the person using it to
stop thinking in Scheme when writing in Common Lisp.
#:Erik
--
If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.
Pierre R. Mai
> Richard James Panturis Giuly wrote:
> >
> > For some reason I can't find how to access the second return
> > value of a function like gethash. Could someone help me out?
>
> multiple-value-bind, multiple-value-call, multiple-value-setq
> etc.
Or, in the unlikely event that you only need the second (and not the
first value), you can use nth-value, as in
(defun key-presentp (key hash)
"Check whether the given key is present in the given hash table."
(nth-value 1 (gethash key hash)))
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre Mai <pm...@acm.org> PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
"One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
Johan Kullstam
> On 28 Jun 2000 10:43:21 +0200, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>
> > CL-USER 9 : 1 > (multiple-value-bind (item present?)
>
> Argh! I am the only one that's bothered by this godawful Schemish use
> of `?' in symbols for "predicate" functions/values?
there's no accounting for taste. i happen to like ? and ! over the
more traditional p and f. just because this notation comes from
scheme doesn't necessarily make it bad. it's only a style convention.
i do use p and f because it's hard to fight the tide of tradition.
macros for CLOS, for example, automatically define a -p instead of a ?
suffix. lisp, being an old language, has many of these minor
traditionals which could have been better but live on for
historical reasons.
you may actually be the only one this bothered.
--
johan kullstam l72t00052
Erik Naggum
| there's no accounting for taste. i happen to like ? and ! over the
| more traditional p and f.
f? If this is what I think it is, namely a truly _perverted_
Schemocentric world-view where Scheme's ridiculous set! is deemed
the model for setf, there _is_ accounting for taste: Scheme is bad
for young people's brains.
| just because this notation comes from scheme doesn't necessarily
| make it bad.
No, not _necessarily_, but it doesn't help. Everything good in
Scheme is already adopted by every other language. Being a
minimalist language, that means whatever is left is just trash
waiting for the last reference to go before it is collected and
carted out.
| you may actually be the only one this bothered.
Not so.
David Bakhash
> you may actually be the only one this bothered.
well, if you wanna know, I'm bothered every time I see a ? or ! in a CL
program.
dave
Johan Kullstam
> * Johan Kullstam <kull...@ne.mediaone.net>
> | there's no accounting for taste. i happen to like ? and ! over the
> | more traditional p and f.
>
> f? If this is what I think it is,
not at all. i just think that using the characters ? and ! instead of
p and f in common-lisp would be preferable [1]. i am not saying use
scheme's set!, i am saying we could just as well have spelled
common-lisp "setf" as "set!" [2]. it'd still *be* setf. only the name
would be different. on the other hand, it's not like spelling matters
much and it's certainly not worth the bother of changing now. keeping
everything consistant is much more important. i'm not agitating for
any changes, just pointing out that i don't find it all that annoying.
> namely a truly _perverted_
> Schemocentric world-view where Scheme's ridiculous set! is deemed
> the model for setf, there _is_ accounting for taste: Scheme is bad
> for young people's brains.
no need for fear and loathing time yet. sorry i brought it up.
[1] just my opinion and i realize there's no accounting for taste.
p and f are letters and whether to use "-p" or just slap a plain
"p" on the end of a predicate is a (albeit very slight) annoyance.
[2] except for early keyboards back in '62 might not have had any "!"
or perhaps it was used for some system function, or maybe someone
else just had a different set of tastes.
--
johan kullstam l72t00052
Erik Naggum
| there's no accounting for taste. i happen to like ? and ! over the
| more traditional p and f.
* Erik Naggum
| f? If this is what I think it is,
* Johan Kullstam <kull...@ne.mediaone.net>
| not at all.
But then you proceed to tell me it is exactly what I think it is: A
serious confusion of Scheme's childishly amusing use of bang in some
operators like set!, with Common Lisp's very generalized "set
field", which originally comes from CLOS, I believe.
| i am not saying use scheme's set!, i am saying we could just as well
| have spelled common-lisp "setf" as "set!" [2].
No, we couldn't. ! is overcute, childish, silly, even ridiculous,
the sort of immature reminders that C programmers who build complex
prefix systems ["Hungarian" noation] in their variable names use
because they lose track of type information. ? at least has _some_
merit, but its association with ! is not to its credit.
| on the other hand, it's not like spelling matters much and it's
| certainly not worth the bother of changing now.
Syntax and spelling matters very much.
| no need for fear and loathing time yet.
OK. :)
| [1] just my opinion and i realize there's no accounting for taste.
| p and f are letters and whether to use "-p" or just slap a plain
| "p" on the end of a predicate is a (albeit very slight) annoyance.
But the rule is quite simple: If the symbol has a - already, add -p
at the end, and if not, just add p.
| [2] except for early keyboards back in '62 might not have had any "!"
| or perhaps it was used for some system function, or maybe someone
| else just had a different set of tastes.
Or perhaps it's because it looks dumb. E.g., suppose I think we
need a special syntax for conditions, like ending in interrobang.
Some would think it cute, some would retch and barf in my general
direction, and hoardes of educators everywhere would think it just
as bright as the Hungarian notation and destroy the aesthetic sense
of _another_ generation of programmers, as if Perl and C++ hadn't
done away with the concept of aesthetics in the first place.
Joe Marshall
> | i am not saying use scheme's set!, i am saying we could just as well
> | have spelled common-lisp "setf" as "set!" [2].
>
> No, we couldn't. ! is overcute, childish, silly, even ridiculous,
> the sort of immature reminders that C programmers who build complex
> prefix systems ["Hungarian" noation] in their variable names use
> because they lose track of type information. ? at least has _some_
> merit, but its association with ! is not to its credit.
`Hungarian' notation loses on two counts: not only does it encodes
type information in variables (strong typing advocates may not object
to this), it also encodes the concrete type rather than the abstract
type, thus cluttering the variable name with irrelevant noise.
Knowing that the variable `user_name' is implemented as a `pointer to
a zero-terminated string of two-byte characters' is pointless trivia.
Scheme's `!' notation does not encode a type, but indicates that the
function named may have side effects. The absence of the `!' is a
reasonable indication that you are dealing with a `pure' function. If
you believe that there is some merit in writing purely functional
code, it is convenient to know if a particular function should be
avoided.
The `?' notation, however, *does* encode type information, although
not the same sort of information that `Hungarian' notation encodes.
Common Lisp does not eschew side effects as much as Scheme, so the `!'
notation may be of less utility.
R Matthew Emerson
> i just think that using the characters ? and ! instead of
> p and f in common-lisp would be preferable [1]. i am not saying use
> scheme's set!, i am saying we could just as well have spelled
> common-lisp "setf" as "set!" [2]. it'd still *be* setf. only the name
> would be different.
I think you're misunderstanding the '!' convention as used in Scheme
and Dylan. I believe that the bang suffix is used to denote mutators.
CL's "nappend" would be "append!"; "nreverse" would be "reverse!";
"sort" would be "sort!", and so forth.
Generalized variable access is something else again.
> on the other hand, it's not like spelling matters much and it's
> certainly not worth the bother of changing now. keeping everything
> consistant is much more important.
Well, CL isn't 100% consistent in any case---why isn't sort called
nsort, for example? I think the point is that it's wise to stick to
the traditional idiom/style/mode of the language.
--
Matt Emerson <r...@grc.nasa.gov>
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
Johan Kullstam
> | [1] just my opinion and i realize there's no accounting for taste.
> | p and f are letters and whether to use "-p" or just slap a plain
> | "p" on the end of a predicate is a (albeit very slight) annoyance.
>
> But the rule is quite simple: If the symbol has a - already, add -p
> at the end, and if not, just add p.
except for CLOS which affixes -p no matter what. i do think the CLOS
behavior is correct. having defclass parse the symbol name string and
use -p or p depending on presence of - or not seems to be a bit more
fanciness than is warranted.
i like a language to support artificial intelligence, not to be an
artificial intelligence in its own right. ;-) reminds me of DWIM.
> | [2] except for early keyboards back in '62 might not have had any "!"
> | or perhaps it was used for some system function, or maybe someone
> | else just had a different set of tastes.
>
> Or perhaps it's because it looks dumb.
which is your (and probably the majority's) opinion. it's also
somewhat of what you are used to. changes are usually unwelcome.
gratuitous change more so.
--
johan kullstam l72t00052
Philip Lijnzaad
> I think you're misunderstanding the '!' convention as used in Scheme
> and Dylan. I believe that the bang suffix is used to denote mutators.
> CL's "nappend" would be "append!"; "nreverse" would be "reverse!";
> "sort" would be "sort!", and so forth.
exactly: FORTH. Did this '!'-convention perhaps come from Forth, where it's
usually pronounced as 'store' (as in: "42 the_answer !", which puts 42 into
the variable the_answer)? Or is it is more likely to have come from mutators
being indicative of imperative (as in "Do this! Do that!") programming?
(I must say though, that NREVERSE doesn't receive much of an aesthetics or
clarity price either)
Philip
--
Ban GM foods! Long live the Mesolithicum, pesticides and starvation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lijnzaad, lijn...@ebi.ac.uk \ European Bioinformatics Institute,rm A2-24
+44 (0)1223 49 4639 / Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton
+44 (0)1223 49 4468 (fax) \ Cambridgeshire CB10 1SD, GREAT BRITAIN
PGP fingerprint: E1 03 BF 80 94 61 B6 FC 50 3D 1F 64 40 75 FB 53
Johan Kullstam
> Johan Kullstam <kull...@ne.mediaone.net> writes:
>
> > i just think that using the characters ? and ! instead of
> > p and f in common-lisp would be preferable [1]. i am not saying use
> > scheme's set!, i am saying we could just as well have spelled
> > common-lisp "setf" as "set!" [2]. it'd still *be* setf. only the name
> > would be different.
>
> I think you're misunderstanding the '!' convention as used in Scheme
> and Dylan.
i think i'm intentionally not caring what the "!" convention means in
scheme or dylan. some lisp operations end in an "f", e.g., SETF, INCF.
one could have spelled it SET! and INC! respectively. it seems most
people here prefer the traditional way. so be it.
> I believe that the bang suffix is used to denote mutators.
> CL's "nappend" would be "append!"; "nreverse" would be "reverse!";
> "sort" would be "sort!", and so forth.
> Generalized variable access is something else again.
hmm. i have always said that there are two kinds of destruction. the
one that might wantonly chew up its args like NREVERSE and the kind
that must alter an argument in a particular well-defined way like
INCF.
> > on the other hand, it's not like spelling matters much and it's
> > certainly not worth the bother of changing now. keeping everything
> > consistant is much more important.
>
> Well, CL isn't 100% consistent in any case---why isn't sort called
> nsort, for example? I think the point is that it's wise to stick to
> the traditional idiom/style/mode of the language.
sure, and there's the REMOVE and DELETE pair. you might think DELETE
would be spelled NREMOVE.
--
johan kullstam l72t00052
R Matthew Emerson
> I think you're misunderstanding the '!' convention as used in Scheme
> and Dylan. I believe that the bang suffix is used to denote mutators.
> CL's "nappend" would be "append!"; "nreverse" would be "reverse!";
> "sort" would be "sort!", and so forth.
err, there isn't actually a function in CL called nappend; nconc
is the destructive version of append.
--
Matt Emerson <r...@grc.nasa.gov>
Wizard shot the food.
Tim Bradshaw
> except for CLOS which affixes -p no matter what. i do think the CLOS
> behavior is correct. having defclass parse the symbol name string and
> use -p or p depending on presence of - or not seems to be a bit more
> fanciness than is warranted.
I think you mean DEFSTRUCT, not DEFCLASS (which doesn't define a
predicate)
--tim
vsync
> [I'm not aware of any tradition of using "f" in Lisp where Scheme uses
> "!". SETF is a fairly recent addition to Lisp, and SETQ was
> originally a minor variation on SET.]
I thought there was somewhat of a tradition of using "n-" for
destructive operations (nconc etc...) Isn't that what "!" is for in
Scheme?
--
vsync
http://quadium.net/ - last updated Fri Jun 23 23:28:05 MDT 2000
Orjner.
vsync
> Argh! I am the only one that's bothered by this godawful Schemish use
> of `?' in symbols for "predicate" functions/values?
I don't know, but I despise the use of "FIRST" and "SECOND" in Winston
and Horn. I _like_ using CAR, CDR, and the like, because it actually
shows the operations taking place, and it's intuitive that CADDR takes
a little more time than CAR. Whenever anything is made "friendly",
there's lossage involved, and painful ignorance on the way.
vsync
> to this), it also encodes the concrete type rather than the abstract
> type, thus cluttering the variable name with irrelevant noise.
> Knowing that the variable `user_name' is implemented as a `pointer to
> a zero-terminated string of two-byte characters' is pointless trivia.
In my Java work especially, I write code that operates on, say, a
LinkedList. I may decide to abstract it more to allow any List, or
restrict it to use MySpecialListDuJour. Why anyone would want to
scatter possibly volatile information throughout their code and make
such changes more difficult is beyond me.
vsync
> exactly: FORTH. Did this '!'-convention perhaps come from Forth, where it's
> usually pronounced as 'store' (as in: "42 the_answer !", which puts 42 into
> the variable the_answer)? Or is it is more likely to have come from mutators
> being indicative of imperative (as in "Do this! Do that!") programming?
Or maybe as a warning to the more forgetful programmers. ("Look out!
This may eat stuff!")
vsync
> When thinking of conses as conses I prefer CAR and CDR to FIRST and
> REST , but when thinking of them as a list, I usually prefer
> FIRST/SECOND/REST/etc. [Though I sometimes use CAR/CDR out of habit;
But I love the fact that lists are just conses of conses, and I love
expressing them that way. One of the Lisp books I read had a section
on "why Lisp doesn't have pointers", but I realized they were wrong:
_everything_ is a pointer. Then I was Enlightened.
What's that quote? "I like Lisp because you can feel the bits between
your toes."?
> and I use CADR and CADAR but rarely other variants]
I used CAR through CADDDR today.
I also discovered the ~R directive for FORMAT. That was fun.
--
vsync
http://quadium.net/ - last updated Fri Jun 23 23:28:05 MDT 2000
(cons (cons (car (cons 'c 'r)) (cdr (cons 'a 'o))) ; Orjner
(cons (cons (car (cons 'n 'c)) (cdr (cons nil 's))) nil)))
Erik Naggum
| except for CLOS which affixes -p no matter what.
Um, where does CLOS do that?
| which is your (and probably the majority's) opinion. it's also
| somewhat of what you are used to. changes are usually unwelcome.
| gratuitous change more so.
Well, I have made it the biggest issue of my life and carreer to be
able to sustain dramatic changes with a minimum of personal cost.
This has certain costs of its own, which would be unwelcome to
people who prefer _most_ things to be practically static in their
life, but staying on top requires so much adaptability to change
that I consider "changes are usually unwelcome" to be a dumb thing
to say in our time. 10 years ago, it would make much more sense as
a general statement for our part of the culture, but the world has,
well, changed a lot in 10 years, and sticking to old stuff is the
hallmark of unemployed or retired IT specialists. The morale of
this gripe is simply: Don't assume that people are so unable to deal
with change that they will use it as an argument against anything.
Chances are that anyone who makes a reasonably good living in
information technology these days have to deal with a rate of change
that would probably drive someone literally insane in the 70's.
Incidentally, I recommend Alvin Toffler: Future Shock to anyone who
think adapting to change is too expensive.
Oh, and as an irrelevant side-note: The the kinds of things that
_don't_ change bug me the most. Stupidity, for instance.
Erik Naggum
| i think i'm intentionally not caring what the "!" convention means in
| scheme or dylan. some lisp operations end in an "f", e.g., SETF, INCF.
| one could have spelled it SET! and INC! respectively. it seems most
| people here prefer the traditional way. so be it.
No. They would be probably spelled SETF! and INCF!, since the F has
nothing at all to do with mutating anything, it has to do with what
is being accessed (and mutated). Please understand this and quit
that annoying noise about the suffix F. It's dead wrong. Repeating
it so annoyingly often means you don't listen, and that very likely
means your other notions are not based on listening, either, which
is a very nice way of saying that they are your own inventions.
Paul Foley
> Paul Foley <myc...@actrix.gen.nz> writes:
>> On 28 Jun 2000 10:43:21 +0200, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>>
>> > CL-USER 9 : 1 > (multiple-value-bind (item present?)
>>
>> Argh! I am the only one that's bothered by this godawful Schemish use
>> of `?' in symbols for "predicate" functions/values?
> there's no accounting for taste. i happen to like ? and ! over the
> more traditional p and f. just because this notation comes from
> scheme doesn't necessarily make it bad. it's only a style convention.
I didn't say it was bad _because_ it comes from Scheme. I guess the
main reason I dislike it is that I think verbally, and automatically
read the punctuation marks as changes in "intonation" (if I can use
that word of a thought), and it's really jarring to have it come in
the programming-language equivalent? of the middle! of a sentence.
[I'm not aware of any tradition of using "f" in Lisp where Scheme uses
"!". SETF is a fairly recent addition to Lisp, and SETQ was
originally a minor variation on SET.]
--
Nomina stultorum in parietibus et portis semper videmus. -- Cicero
Christopher Browne
>* Johan Kullstam <kull...@ne.mediaone.net>
>| i am not saying use scheme's set!, i am saying we could just as well
>| have spelled common-lisp "setf" as "set!" [2].
>
> the sort of immature reminders that C programmers who build complex
> prefix systems ["Hungarian" noation] in their variable names use
> because they lose track of type information. ? at least has _some_
> merit, but its association with ! is not to its credit.
Worse still, it's more likely due, not to Scheme, but rather to
_Forth_.
: add2! dup @ 2 + ! ;
--
cbbr...@ntlug.org - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #77. "If I have a fit of temporary
insanity and decide to give the hero the chance to reject a job as my
trusted lieutentant, I will retain enough sanity to wait until my
current trusted lieutenant is out of earshot before making the offer."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Robert Monfera
> CL-USER 9 : 1 > (multiple-value-bind (item present?)
> (gethash 2 ht)
> (list item present?))
Shortcut: (multiple-value-list (gethash 2 ht))
Robert
Paul Foley
> I don't know, but I despise the use of "FIRST" and "SECOND" in Winston
> and Horn. I _like_ using CAR, CDR, and the like, because it actually
> shows the operations taking place, and it's intuitive that CADDR takes
> a little more time than CAR. Whenever anything is made "friendly",
> there's lossage involved, and painful ignorance on the way.
When thinking of conses as conses I prefer CAR and CDR to FIRST and
REST , but when thinking of them as a list, I usually prefer
FIRST/SECOND/REST/etc. [Though I sometimes use CAR/CDR out of habit;
and I use CADR and CADAR but rarely other variants]
I don't think of FIRST and REST as replacements for CAR and CDR.
Johan Kullstam
yes. thanks.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[kull...@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
Larry Elmore
"Philip Lijnzaad" <lijn...@ebi.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:u7sntxb...@o2-3.ebi.ac.uk...
>
> > I think you're misunderstanding the '!' convention as used in Scheme
> > and Dylan. I believe that the bang suffix is used to denote mutators.
> > CL's "nappend" would be "append!"; "nreverse" would be "reverse!";
> > "sort" would be "sort!", and so forth.
>
it's
> usually pronounced as 'store' (as in: "42 the_answer !", which puts 42
into
> the variable the_answer)? Or is it is more likely to have come from
mutators
> being indicative of imperative (as in "Do this! Do that!") programming?
I don't know. I've wondered about a possible Forth connection, too. I've
always had a good feeling about Forth since it was the second computer
language I learned and found that it was so far superior to the first (Basic
on a Radio Shack TRS-80 Model I) that I stuck with it for quite a while.
It's too minimalist, though, and too fragmented, but it was _fun_ to work
with. I've always hated C and C++, could tolerate Ada95, but didn't
rediscover the _joy_ of programming until I encountered Lisp last year and
took the time to really look into it.
> (I must say though, that NREVERSE doesn't receive much of an aesthetics or
> clarity price either)
No, it certainly doesn't. One thing I really like about Scheme is that it's
very clean and consistent (what there is of it; although I'm not too sure
about continuations being all that clean). Having strong opinions on whether
set! or setf is preferable strikes me as akin to having strong opinions
about whether sandwiches should be sliced vertically or diagonally -- i.e.,
some people probably need more fiber in their diet. 'setf' makes as little
sense to me as 'set!' -- so it's short for 'set field', so what? What _else_
could it possibly set other than various words meaning the same thing? Why
couldn't it have just been called 'set'?
Either way, I find Scheme's consistency pleasing (as far as it goes) and
Common Lisp's many idiosyncracies in this regard rather dopey -- I realize
there are historical reasons for all of them, but I've never been one to
revere tradition simply for tradition's sake. Of course, I also think the
English alphabet needs to be somewhat enlarged and made phonetic -- 'cat'
_should_ be spelled 'kat' and the letter 'c' used to represent just the 'ch'
sound instead of also masquerading as an 's' sometimes and a 'k' at others.
Common Lisp is a lot more usable than Scheme (though most Schemes have a lot
of (mutually incompatible) extensions that partially make up for the slim
standard), but I'd like to see a "grown-up" Scheme -- a standard that
embraces the functionality of Common Lisp while remaining as clean and
consistent as possible. In theory, Scheme is clean and consistent now, but
in practice it's not because of all the extensive, incompatible add-ons each
version finds necessary to put in. That's why I'm returning to Common Lisp
after an extended detour to learn Scheme -- Scheme's not as practical. One
might hope that will change, but at the rate the Scheme standard grows, it
will reach Common Lisp's functionality long after I'm dead.
Larry
Reini Urban
>> > CL-USER 9 : 1 > (multiple-value-bind (item present?)
>>
>> of `?' in symbols for "predicate" functions/values?
>
>there's no accounting for taste. i happen to like ? and ! over the
>more traditional p and f. just because this notation comes from
>scheme doesn't necessarily make it bad. it's only a style convention.
>
>macros for CLOS, for example, automatically define a -p instead of a ?
>suffix. lisp, being an old language, has many of these minor
>traditionals which could have been better but live on for
>historical reasons.
>
I personally prefer -bool over ? or -p suffixes where is enough room.
here as once used argument there is enough room, inside loops or nested
calls I would favor a short p?
-p is reserved for a function, not the variable,
? is fine in a variable name, but I prefer more readable names,
so dummies (coming from pascal/C/java, ...) can also understand it
without the bruden to be forced to think in cryptic language specific
pre-/suffix conventions as with scheme, lisp, ms-hungarian and such.
--
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/autocad/news/faq/autolisp.html
Erik Naggum
| Worse still, it's more likely due, not to Scheme, but rather to
| _Forth_.
|
| : add2! dup @ 2 + ! ;
I find this _highly_ unlikely.
#:Erik, who wrote a Forth interpreter for fun for a PDP-10 in 1982.
Pierre R. Mai
> Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>
> > CL-USER 9 : 1 > (multiple-value-bind (item present?)
> > (gethash 2 ht)
> > (list item present?))
>
> Shortcut: (multiple-value-list (gethash 2 ht))
Or (multiple-value-call #'list (gethash 2 ht)) ;)
This is more useful of course when you want to call some other
constructor, like #'cons, or some BOA structure constructor, etc.
Regs, Pierre.
--
Pierre Mai <pm...@acm.org> PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
"One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
Johan Kullstam
> * Johan Kullstam <kull...@ne.mediaone.net>
> | except for CLOS which affixes -p no matter what.
>
> Um, where does CLOS do that?
sorry, i meant defstruct.
this whole thing is snowballing way further than it was ever worth.
i shall, as they say in france, laisse tombé.
Robert Monfera
> Or (multiple-value-call #'list (gethash 2 ht)) ;)
I initially thought of multiple-value-call as a function that would
return two values (8 and 2) instead of 10 in this case:
(multiple-value-call #'+ (floor 7 3)(floor 13 2)) => 8 2
Would not it be more reasonable?
Robert
SRS
Paul Foley <myc...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Argh! I am the only one that's bothered by this godawful Schemish use
> of `?' in symbols for "predicate" functions/values?
Starting predicates with "is" or "has" (like java does) avoids this
problem altogether: e.g. is-present instead of present{-p|p|?|whatever}
--SRS
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Larry Elmore
"vsync" <vs...@quadium.net> wrote in message
news:87itutc...@quadium.net...
> Paul Foley <myc...@actrix.gen.nz> writes:
>
> > Argh! I am the only one that's bothered by this godawful Schemish use
> > of `?' in symbols for "predicate" functions/values?
Actually, I prefer it. In effect, they're asking a true/false question and
the '?' makes sense in that regard. More sense than 'p' or sometimes '-p'
stuck on the end, at least to me. I never had any problem with 'set!'
instead of 'setf', either, perhaps because it's similar to Forth's '!'
(store) operator and I used Forth for a number of years. At least Scheme
uses '!' consistently, identifying all destructive functions similarly. I
honestly don't see how prepending an 'n' to a function (_especially_ with
'nconc' as the destructive version of 'append' -- where's the logic there?)
is any better. I'm considering renaming a number of CL functions and macros
for use on my own system, perhaps with a translator to restore them to their
original form for any code I might put in a public forum. I suppose there's
some dangers in that, though -- I've used HP (RPN) calculators for so long
that now I can barely use a TI or Casio without making so many mistakes I'd
be better off using pencil and paper.
> I don't know, but I despise the use of "FIRST" and "SECOND" in Winston
> and Horn. I _like_ using CAR, CDR, and the like, because it actually
> shows the operations taking place,
I don't see this, unless you are using the IBM mainframe on which Lisp was
first developed -- and even then, the abbreviations for 'Contents of Address
Register' and 'Contents of Data Register' aren't very meaningful...
I've always thought 'head' and 'tail' would've made a lot more sense even
40+ years ago, and possibly 'htail', 'httail', etc. as extensions. For some
things, though, like getting the nth element of a list, other words are a
_lot_ clearer, though I name them 'first-of', 'third-of', etc.
> and it's intuitive that CADDR takes
> a little more time than CAR. Whenever anything is made "friendly",
> there's lossage involved, and painful ignorance on the way.
I'm not a fan of what's usually passed off as "friendly," what you state is
usually the reality. I _am_ a big fan of "clearer", though, and that's truly
friendly, but only as a consequence.
Larry
vsync
> > I don't know, but I despise the use of "FIRST" and "SECOND" in Winston
> > and Horn. I _like_ using CAR, CDR, and the like, because it actually
> > shows the operations taking place,
>
> I don't see this, unless you are using the IBM mainframe on which Lisp was
> first developed -- and even then, the abbreviations for 'Contents of Address
> Register' and 'Contents of Data Register' aren't very meaningful...
I honestly can't explain it; the names CAR and CDR just made instant
sense to me, and have stuck with me as The Logical Way To Do Things
ever since.
As far as IBM mainframes go, I have never used a mainframe, and the
most ancient Lisp architecture I have used is CLISP (plus Emacs, if
that counts =). But although the terms themselves may not have been
the best choices, using them allows me to _visualize_ the operations
in my head. Quite literally. I can see the pointers and the lists
and the structures. No other language has let me do that as easily.
Anyway, I find legacy hardware quite easy to understand and in many
ways more elegant than today's systems. Just a personal quirk.
> I've always thought 'head' and 'tail' would've made a lot more sense even
Mmmmm... Prolog.
--
vsync
http://quadium.net/ - last updated Thu Jun 29 13:01:57 MDT 2000
Erik Naggum
| I don't see this, unless you are using the IBM mainframe on which
| Lisp was first developed -- and even then, the abbreviations for
| 'Contents of Address Register' and 'Contents of Data Register'
| aren't very meaningful...
AFAIK, they were the instructions used to extract halves of a kind
of pointer, and it consisted of an address part and a decrement part
(not data). A stack that knew its size was easily implemented with
this scheme, and it was done just that way on the PDP-10 I grew up
on (for all practical purposes) -- both stack and more specialized
instructions would add 1 to both halves of the machine word and you
could test for overflow at this point if the _negative_ size would
overflow into zero. If you read the Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Reference
Manual carefully, you'll much intermingled discussions of the
special treatment of negative pointer values -- the sized pointer
concept was clearly _abused_ by the Lisp implementation on that IBM
processor! I found this quite amusing when I read it.
(Argh, this remind me that I pushed a request for an explanation of
the power of the PDP-10 macro assembler on my internal stack, and it
_doesn't_ signal overflow. Sigh.)
| I've always thought 'head' and 'tail' would've made a lot more sense
| even 40+ years ago, and possibly 'htail', 'httail', etc. as
| extensions. For some things, though, like getting the nth element of
| a list, other words are a _lot_ clearer, though I name them
| 'first-of', 'third-of', etc.
Hm? I already pronounce (first foo) as "first of foo".
#:Erik
Hartmann Schaffer
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.net> writes:
> * "Larry Elmore" <ljel...@prodigy.net>
>| I don't see this, unless you are using the IBM mainframe on which
>| Lisp was first developed -- and even then, the abbreviations for
>| 'Contents of Address Register' and 'Contents of Data Register'
>| aren't very meaningful...
unless memory deceives me very badly, the d in cdr stands for
decrement. given the limited amount of memory those machines had,
there usualls was enough space in a word or register to kep two
addresse, and manu machines had an optimization feature that let you
store a second value in a (n index)register that was added to or
subtracted from the other (address) part every time the register got
accessed.
> ...
--
Hartmann Schaffer
Derek Peschel
You're very close to the truth. Larry is a farther away (and his expansions
of CAR and CDR get quoted a lot -- or "Contents of Decrement Register" if
you're lucky).
The IBM 704 had 36-bit words and 15-bit (!) addresses. Words used as data
had four parts: 3-bit tag (or prefix?) field, 15-bit address field, 3-bit
prefix (or tag?) field, and 15-bit decrement field. I'm not sure where the
prefix and tag fields go in the word.
LISP 1.5 rarely or never uses the prefix and tag fields. CONS cells have 0
in those fields. So that's why you only get CAR and CDR; earlier versions
of LISP gave you CPR and CTR (and CWR for the whole word) as well but
evidently they were too useless to keep.
Of course LISP does have full words (numbers, names of symbols, machine
instructions) in which all the fields are full, but they aren't treated as
separate fields so you aren't allowed to get the parts of full words.
The real key to the etymology is that "register" once referred to _all_
memory locations, not just the ones internal to the CPU. If you programmed
the machine directly, you might want to refer to the address field of
location 12345. This would be the contents of the address field of register
12345, or CAR 12345. LISP added names (symbols) so you didn't have to refer
to absolute memory locations, but the usage is almost the same. (CAR FOO)
converts FOO to an absolute location and gets you the contents of the
address field at that location, or register. The part about index register
instructions is true but is a red herring.
-- Derek
Janos Blazi
Derek Peschel <dpes...@eskimo.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
slrn8ludkl....@eskimo.com...
Isn't it strange that early machine archtectures still have such an impact
on modern programming languages? This is the same as the zero terminated
strings in C, but one would not expect this kind of thing in Lisp2!
Janos Blazi
Erik Naggum
| Isn't it strange that early machine archtectures still have such an
| impact on modern programming languages?
No. Genuinely good ideas don't suddenly turn bad because of the
passage of time.
| This is the same as the zero terminated strings in C,
No, it isn't.
| but one would not expect this kind of thing in Lisp2!
Lisp2?
Take a look at LDB and DPB some day you're prepared for a shock.
Janos Blazi
Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
31715470...@naggum.net...
> * "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@vipsurf.de>
> | Isn't it strange that early machine archtectures still have such an
> | impact on modern programming languages?
>
> No. Genuinely good ideas don't suddenly turn bad because of the
> passage of time.
>
> | This is the same as the zero terminated strings in C,
>
> No, it isn't.
Prima facie it seemed to be tha same, but I possibly some deeper analysis
may show that you are right.
>
> | but one would not expect this kind of thing in Lisp2!
>
> Lisp2?
I saw at the Python home page that they are working on some minor changes
and they wanted to call it Python 1.6 after 1.5.2 but now they call it
Python 2 as "some companies do not use products the version numbers of which
start with a 1". And I feel that such hype, however disgusting, may be
helpful.
>
> Take a look at LDB and DPB some day you're prepared for a shock.
Hahaha! Now I did not want to be reprimanded again so I took a look in the
Net and found in google.com that "LDB" stands for "regrettable debugger" and
"Long Distance Bacgammon players" and "'Little Drummer Boy' drum loop
creation software" on the first page and there are nine other pages to
follow.
J.B.
Robert Monfera
> Hahaha! Now I did not want to be reprimanded again so I took a look
> in the
> Net and found in google.com that "LDB" stands for "regrettable
> debugger" and
> "Long Distance Bacgammon players" and "'Little Drummer Boy' drum loop
> creation software" on the first page and there are nine other pages
> to follow.
http://www.xanalys.com/software_tools/reference/HyperSpec/Body/acc_ldb.html#ldb
http://www.xanalys.com/software_tools/reference/HyperSpec/Body/fun_dpb.html#dpb
Robert
Erik Naggum
| > Take a look at LDB and DPB some day you're prepared for a shock.
|
| Net and found in google.com that "LDB" stands for "regrettable debugger" and
| "Long Distance Bacgammon players" and "'Little Drummer Boy' drum loop
| creation software" on the first page and there are nine other pages to
| follow.
Sigh. HINT: Check the HyperSpec. Also the Hacker's Dictionary.
Hartmann Schaffer
"Janos Blazi" <jbl...@vipsurf.de> writes:
>
> Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> 31715470...@naggum.net...
>> * "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@vipsurf.de>
>> | Isn't it strange that early machine archtectures still have such an
>> | impact on modern programming languages?
>>
>> No. Genuinely good ideas don't suddenly turn bad because of the
>> passage of time.
>>
>> | This is the same as the zero terminated strings in C,
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> Prima facie it seemed to be tha same, but I possibly some deeper analysis
> may show that you are right.
no: this is a case of problem oriented data structuring that happened
to find hardware structures andinstructions that can conveniently be
used for it. you could argue that using the machine instruction names
for the function names (head and tail would have served as well for
lists, though not necessarily for non-list cons cells) was
unfortunate, but i wouldn't say that the machine architecture had such
a great influence on the language design of lisp. i could name you a
few languages for which this is much more true. Zero termnated
strings is probably more influenced by the intended use of strings
than by the machine architecture.
>>
>> | but one would not expect this kind of thing in Lisp2!
>>
>> Lisp2?
i doubt Janos meant that, but there was a Lisp2 implementation done in
Stanford in the 60s (i think by Paul Abrahams). I never found too much
information about it, but it seems to have been Lisp1.5 semantics with
largely Algol syntax (not sure about exactly where in the Algol tree)
> ..
--
Hartmann Schaffer
Gareth McCaughan
[SNIP: someone else's explanation of CAR and CDR]
> Isn't it strange that early machine archtectures still have such an impact
> on modern programming languages? This is the same as the zero terminated
> strings in C, but one would not expect this kind of thing in Lisp2!
Doesn't look like very much impact to me. Just the names. (It's
not as if CL is the only language that has an "ordered pair"
type, after all. Even C++ has one, sort of.)
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
sig under construction
Janos Blazi
> to find hardware structures andinstructions that can conveniently be
> used for it. you could argue that using the machine instruction names
> for the function names (head and tail would have served as well for
> lists, though not necessarily for non-list cons cells) was
> unfortunate, but i wouldn't say that the machine architecture had such
> a great influence on the language design of lisp. i could name you a
> few languages for which this is much more true. Zero termnated
> strings is probably more influenced by the intended use of strings
> than by the machine architecture.
I thought about Erik's remark and my explanation is this: You always had to
use zero terminated strings in C, there was no way to circuvent them, but
you could do very well without LDB (it took me several minutes to figure out
that in LDB the byte does not necessarily starts at a byte boundary; it is a
powerful function). (The reason for zero terminated strings was that on
their first machine (PDP?) they used hardwate to find such zeroes.)
And in C++ zero terminated strings still were in use, though they became
less important.
>
> >>
> >> | but one would not expect this kind of thing in Lisp2!
> >>
> >> Lisp2?
>
> i doubt Janos meant that, but there was a Lisp2 implementation done in
> Stanford in the 60s (i think by Paul Abrahams). I never found too much
> information about it, but it seems to have been Lisp1.5 semantics with
> largely Algol syntax (not sure about exactly where in the Algol tree)
No, I did not know about this (as usual). So call it Lisp3.
J.B.
Paul F. Dietz
> (The reason for zero terminated strings was that on
> their first machine (PDP?) they used hardwate to find such zeroes.)
I think the reason was so you could write loops like:
while (*to++ = *from++);
which translates to two PDP-11 instructions, if 'to'
and 'from' were declared to be in registers. The
mov instruction set a condition code depending
on whether the byte moved was zero or not.
Paul
Larry Elmore
"Derek Peschel" <dpes...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8ludkl....@eskimo.com...
> In article <395e...@news.sentex.net>, Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
> >In article <31714391...@naggum.net>,
> > Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.net> writes:
> >> * "Larry Elmore" <ljel...@prodigy.net>
> >>| I don't see this, unless you are using the IBM mainframe on which
> >>| Lisp was first developed -- and even then, the abbreviations for
> >>| 'Contents of Address Register' and 'Contents of Data Register'
> >>| aren't very meaningful...
> >
> >unless memory deceives me very badly, the d in cdr stands for
> >decrement. given the limited amount of memory those machines had,
> >there usualls was enough space in a word or register to kep two
> >addresse, and manu machines had an optimization feature that let you
> >store a second value in a (n index)register that was added to or
> >subtracted from the other (address) part every time the register got
> >accessed.
>
> You're very close to the truth. Larry is a farther away (and his
expansions
> of CAR and CDR get quoted a lot -- or "Contents of Decrement Register" if
> you're lucky).
They do get quoted a lot -- the incorrect explanation was one I'd read in
several places and so assumed was correct.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Lisp's historical baggage is even
heavier than I thought...
Larry
Robert Monfera
Robert
Larry Elmore wrote:
[lots of text deleted]
Erik Naggum
| You always had to use zero terminated strings in C, there was no way
| to circuvent them
Wrong. The language does initialize literal strings in the code to
be zero-terminated, but there's nothing that actually requires this
apart from the standard C library. Software written in C that does
not use literals in the source code don't have to deal with this at
all if they don't want to. Several Pascal systems have used a
length word (16 bits) before the data. A simple way to deal with C
and Pascal is thus to allocate three bytes too many, relative to the
exact length, and write the length before the string and a zero byte
after it. Some Common Lisp systems also do this zero byte thing for
the benefit of their FFIs.
| (it took me several minutes to figure out that in LDB the byte does
| not necessarily starts at a byte boundary; it is a powerful
| function).
You would have spent less time if you had looked up "byte" in the
glossary of the HyperSpec. The 8-bit byte is a story of IBM taking
over the meaning of perfectly good words.
| (The reason for zero terminated strings was that on their first
| machine (PDP?) they used hardwate to find such zeroes.)
Wrong. (Except in the trivial sense that one _always_ uses hardware
when executing programs of any kind.)
| And in C++ zero terminated strings still were in use, though they
| became less important.
Wrong.
ISO/IEC 14882:1998(E) [lex.string] 2.13.4 String literals
4 After any necessary concatenation, in translation phase 7 (2.1),
'\0' is appended to every string literal so that programs that scan
a string can find its end.
| No, I did not know about this (as usual). So call it Lisp3.
Why not just _drop_ this silliness?
Janos Blazi
(A)
You take my (and anybody's) sentences as if they were mathematical
statements and then you check if they are true in the strict mathematical
sense. Usually they are not as it is too tiresome to think about every word
one writes and additionally my knowledge lacks the ultimate precision too.
Then your comment is a scathing 'WRONG'.
Of course you are usually right in a stricly logical sense.
(B)
Let me tell you a joke (which I usually do not do):
A few people are in the air in a balloon and there is a storm and some way
they find themselves over the sea. They do not know where they are but after
a few hours they see land and they see somebody down below. They shout:
'Where are we?!' And after a few minutes of thinking the guy they see shouts
back: 'In a balloon!'
Now first they are very angry but then they conclude that this guy must have
been a mathematician, as
(i) he thought for a long time, how to answer;
(ii) the answer was absolutely precise;
(iii) the answer was absolutely useless as well.
(C)
By saying 'less important' I meant that now there are several string classes
in C++ you can use (at least to some extent) instead of the zero terminated
strings.
(D)
And I remember reading somewhere that the PDPs had some special hardware
that made dealing with zero terminated strings fast but I forgot where I
read that.
> | No, I did not know about this (as usual). So call it Lisp3.
>
> Why not just _drop_ this silliness?
O.K., I shall drop it. But I still think it is worth thinking about
something like that.
J.
Erik Naggum
| You take my (and anybody's) sentences as if they were mathematical
| statements and then you check if they are true in the strict
| mathematical sense.
Wrong.
Janos Blazi
> * "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@vipsurf.de>
> | You take my (and anybody's) sentences as if they were mathematical
> | statements and then you check if they are true in the strict
> | mathematical sense.
>
> Wrong.
:)
J.
Hartmann Schaffer
"Janos Blazi" <jbl...@vipsurf.de> writes:
> ...
> I thought about Erik's remark and my explanation is this: You always had to
> use zero terminated strings in C, there was no way to circuvent them, but
no you don't. in C, strings are nothing but arrays of characters, and
your code can deal with rhem any way it (or it's programmer) wants.
> you could do very well without LDB (it took me several minutes to figure out
> that in LDB the byte does not necessarily starts at a byte boundary; it is a
> powerful function). (The reason for zero terminated strings was that on
> their first machine (PDP?) they used hardwate to find such zeroes.)
pdp 7 and pdp11. the pdp11 definitely didn't have any special
instructions to support zero terminated strings (except for the fact
that almost any instruction set the condition register, so you usually
didn't have to use an extra compare instruction to check for a zero
byte. C's granddaddy (bcpl) used length delimited strings (i.e you
stored the length at the beginning of the string). My suspicion is
(based on my own experiences) that for the applications C got used
for the length determined strings didn't buy you anything (esp in the
absence of any hadware support for string move), snd in most cases you
get more compact code (those machines didn't have more than 64KB
address space, so code size was critical) with zero terminated strings.
> And in C++ zero terminated strings still were in use, though they became
> less important.
because there are a couple of alternate string libraries available.
Just proves that there is no assumption about string representation
built into the language
> ...
--
Hartmann Schaffer
Barry Margolin
Hartmann Schaffer <h...@inferno.nirvananet> wrote:
>In article <39607...@spamkiller.newsfeeds.com>,
> "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@vipsurf.de> writes:
>> ...
>> I thought about Erik's remark and my explanation is this: You always had to
>> use zero terminated strings in C, there was no way to circuvent them, but
>
>no you don't. in C, strings are nothing but arrays of characters, and
>your code can deal with rhem any way it (or it's programmer) wants.
Actually, in the C standard, the term "string" is defined to be to
zero-terminated arrays of characters. I believe the descriptions of the
strXXX() functions depend on this definition (e.g. the description of
strcat() says that its two arguments are pointers to strings).
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
Hartmann Schaffer
Barry Margolin <bar...@genuity.net> writes:
> In article <3960...@news.sentex.net>,
> Hartmann Schaffer <h...@inferno.nirvananet> wrote:
>>In article <39607...@spamkiller.newsfeeds.com>,
>> "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@vipsurf.de> writes:
>>> ...
>>> I thought about Erik's remark and my explanation is this: You always had to
>>> use zero terminated strings in C, there was no way to circuvent them, but
>>
>>no you don't. in C, strings are nothing but arrays of characters, and
>>your code can deal with rhem any way it (or it's programmer) wants.
>
> Actually, in the C standard, the term "string" is defined to be to
> zero-terminated arrays of characters. I believe the descriptions of the
doesn't that only cover the string literals and the library functions?
you can easily write code that doesn't use the zero termination
> strXXX() functions depend on this definition (e.g. the description of
> strcat() says that its two arguments are pointers to strings).
>
--
Hartmann Schaffer
Barry Margolin
Hartmann Schaffer <h...@inferno.nirvananet> wrote:
>In article <e%485.29$VE5.689@burlma1-snr2>,
> Barry Margolin <bar...@genuity.net> writes:
>> In article <3960...@news.sentex.net>,
>> Hartmann Schaffer <h...@inferno.nirvananet> wrote:
>>>In article <39607...@spamkiller.newsfeeds.com>,
>>> "Janos Blazi" <jbl...@vipsurf.de> writes:
>>>> ...
>>>> I thought about Erik's remark and my explanation is this: You always had to
>>>> use zero terminated strings in C, there was no way to circuvent them, but
>>>
>>>no you don't. in C, strings are nothing but arrays of characters, and
>>>your code can deal with rhem any way it (or it's programmer) wants.
>>
>> Actually, in the C standard, the term "string" is defined to be to
>> zero-terminated arrays of characters. I believe the descriptions of the
>
>doesn't that only cover the string literals and the library functions?
>you can easily write code that doesn't use the zero termination
The things that it deals with would not generally be called "strings". In
the C community, that term has a specific meaning, which is based on the
literals and the library functions. Anything else is just a character
array, not a string.
David Thornley
>In article <m24s6e2...@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>,
> Paul Foley <myc...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> of `?' in symbols for "predicate" functions/values?
>
>problem altogether: e.g. is-present instead of present{-p|p|?|whatever}
>
Anybody got another standard to propose, to add to the existing ones?
How about putting a capital Q in the middle of the symbol? Of course,
this standard has problems with symbols with an odd number of characters.
Alternatively, of course, I suppose we could go over to Java newsgroups
and tell them that they can get rid of those annoying is- prefixes by
replacing them with -p suffixes.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Larry Elmore
"Robert Monfera" <mon...@fisec.com> wrote in message
news:3960A89F...@fisec.com...
> Your superfluous quoting baggage is even heavier than I thought...