comp.lang.lisp Google Group

Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better

2008-07-20T19:22:36Z

Oh, my.
kt

Re: Turn an ordinary function into a generic function

2008-07-20T19:21:57Z

As I understood it, the latter should happen -- (defun x (y)) being
equivalent to (defmethod x (y)), if x is turned into a generic
function by defining a method on it. I am not sure, if the order in
which defun and defmethod take place matters, but I guess it does.
(e.g. If the defun in your example would have overwritten the generic

Re: New List Interpreter

2008-07-20T18:47:18Z

Well, the current situation is actually in favor of quantum computation.
Currently, QLisp means three different things, with different
probabilities. Only if you look closer at it, the system will collapse
and you know which QLisp you actually have. ;)
So QuantumLisp it is... ;)
Pascal

Re: atoms in a list interned when called by another package. why?

2008-07-20T18:43:03Z

A lot of people replied, but no one hit the fundamental issues, IMO.
It was touched on obliquely a couple of times, but not head on.
First, Common Lisp semantics is defined on structure, not on text.
So the entire language is defined not on what that notation above does,
but on what the internal structure contains. Definitions are made on

Re: atoms in a list interned when called by another package. why?

2008-07-20T18:26:14Z

Except be careful because for Zetalisp packages (or maybe Zetalisp
syntax, I don't recall), it meant to bind *PACKAGE* to that package
and then call read. So SI:(FOO BAR) was what CL would write as
(SI::FOO SI::BAR), but only because the SYSTEM-INTERNALS package
(SI, for short) was Zetalisp style and didn't have the internal/external

Re: New List Interpreter

2008-07-20T18:19:59Z

I would think that, perhaps apart from the domain name, the risk of
ambiguity is very low...

Re: New List Interpreter

2008-07-20T18:13:43Z

I would think the obvious "license" in that case would be distributing a
file with the words "for educational purpose only" with the source code.

cheap DG belt PayPal gift discount

2008-07-20T17:40:18Z

cheap DG belt PayPal gift discount
Dear friend
welcome to shopping on [link]
1.5% paypal handling charge supports the online payment!
2.Use your intergla replacement more good gift!
3.notes by email and website of deliver each package at first time.
Have a good day!
Sincerely yours,

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

2008-07-20T17:36:21Z

Wow! All these years when I occasionally heard of a "thunk" I never
was told, until now, what it really meant. Thanks for the info!!
Followup question #1: I assume these are lexical closures in the
environment of the point of the call, right?
Followup question #2: For simple arithmetic expressions, I can

Re: Turn an ordinary function into a generic function

2008-07-20T17:37:26Z

Yes, the reason for that is that it is that there isn't really a uniquely
determined, philosophically correct thing to do there.
Consider that DEFUN might mean "define a function that is total" or it might
mean "define a function that is the default". Suppose you think it means
"define a function that is the default". Then what does:

Re: Turn an ordinary function into a generic function

2008-07-20T17:13:57Z

That worked for me, too (OpenMCL, SBCL, Allegro), but the original
ordinary function is lost, instead of becoming the "fall-through", if
none of the generic functions methods matches.
Regards,
dhl

Re: Turn an ordinary function into a generic function

2008-07-20T17:00:48Z

Ok, thanks for the clarification.
Cheers,
dhl

Re: Turn an ordinary function into a generic function

2008-07-20T16:53:50Z

In article
<c3ffc29a-f7f8-44bc-9f2e-bd538 46b9...@d77g2000hsb.googlegrou ps.com>,
LispWorks:
P100 30 > (defun foo (bar)
(baz bar))
FOO
P100 31 > (defmethod foo (bar)
(baz bar))
Error: FOO is defined as an ordinary function #<interpreted function FOO 40600051DC>
1 (continue) Discard existing definition and create generic function

Re: Turn an ordinary function into a generic function

2008-07-20T16:51:46Z

DanL wrote:
No, it doesn't.
It is sometimes a good idea to be able to "protect" a function from
having methods defined on it. In Common Lisp, when you define a plain
function, users cannot add methods. That feature would have "destroyed"
that possibility (or would have caused hairy problems wrt defining when

Turn an ordinary function into a generic function

2008-07-20T16:39:31Z

I have just been watching [link],
where at around 24:00 it is mentioned, that one can turn an ordinary
function into a generic one. ("... those ordinary functions become the
default method for the generic function.")
Well, I have tried that, and all I got was errors. The video is from