Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Jul 16 2008 7:43 am
Subject: Re: The Fundamental Confusion of Xah
On 16 Jul., 07:33, "xah...@gmail.com" <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Rainer Joswig,Dear Xah!
It's missing the core of the issue. code as data is not about syntax.
> Rainer wrote:
> > Lisp uses the same external s-expression representation of Lisp
> Yeah, and?
> I wrote: «A regular nested syntax, makes it possible to do systematic
> source code transformation in a way that's also trivial to implement.
> Did you disagree with this? Further, your statement is basically
It's a question
a simple representation of code and a function from external source to
code as data (-> READ)
and code as data to external source (-> PRINT). There are other syntax
variants (say, like
XML) that can be used for that. s-expressions are relatively primitive
and easy to implement/use. That's one of the features of Lisp, that
this mechanism is relatively simple (compare that to the spec of XML
which includes additional things like Schemas, but no computation).
The transformations in Lisp are not done on textual source. They are
Lisp dialects usually (the Scheme standard is an exception) see
There is no fixed syntax and a fixed programmed scanner/parser for
> I dont' care about politness in newsgroup, but in discussion, you needOk, my point was that you were missing the core of the issue when
> to acknowledge points you recognize as valid or worthy to make
> progress, ok?
insisting on syntax. It's just easy in Lisp, because it is so
> In that thread, if i may summarize: some experienced common lisp coderI remember that thread, right.
> posted his first version of code to do the reformatting of lisp code,
> you, and other Common Lisp morons, sprang to feet and chocked him out
> of breath. The final outcome of the thread is that, Common Lisp can
> reformat the code, but will lose comments (and few other problems
> (such as dealing with macros or something)), which is not usable for
> the purpose of automatically formatting source code for editing. If i
> recall correctly, i made the last post in that thread summarize the
That's not just a problem of Common Lisp, that's a problem of Lisp in
It's true for a certain class of comments. Mainly comments
CL-USER 15 > (defun foo (a) "this is a documentation string" a)
CL-USER 16 > (documentation 'foo 'function)
The other thing is to define some comment form that is part of the
(defun foo (a)
(defun comment (level text) (declare (ignore level text)))
What you need to do with the code-as-data approach, is to make
That's one of the reasons structure editors for Lisp code are
I'm not saying that this shouldn't be tried and that it is
Try to get a copy of the old book 'Interactive Programming
Stallman (page 76):
1. The user can specify any style of indentation and the system will
So, Stallman was no fan of structure editing and probably also
Again, I'm not saying that it (automatic code formatting) should not
Just try to implement it for Emacs, I'll bet it would find some users.
> The number one Common Lisp moron slaving in comp.lang.lisp, keeping aToo much honor.
> vigil to smother any seed of progress that may be out of CL tradition,
> is currently probably you.
> Also, you (and quite a handful of other CL morons) have a nasty habit,You were talking about Lisp and you were posting to comp.lang.lisp .
> which i also stated in the past half year. Namely, you patently ignore
> any pertinent point about other langs that has been brought up, but
> always drive the discussion into CL technicalities. This is done to a
> degree that you and your cohorts seem even unwilling or unable to show
> code in emacs lisp.
is mainly just a subset of Common Lisp (no closures, no CLOS, ...)
I don't know why you are so excited about Emacs Lisp. It's a very
small domain specific Lisp variant that was designed to implement
extensions. That's all. For that it does relatively well.
Everybody who understands Common Lisp can learn Emacs Lisp in a day
then struggle with the large Emacs library. ;-) The concepts
of Emacs Lisp are all very old and most predate Common Lisp, Scheme
other Lisp dialects. Many of the things that the basic Emacs does have
been implemented in Editors written in Scheme or Common Lisp also.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.