Re: macros
Kaz Kylheku
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2009-05-22, Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.nospam> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Please stop posting five minutes after I post. Post, then wait a day or
Stop posting shit that anyone with two brain cells can debunk in five seconds.
> so. That way maybe I'll actually be able to get caught up.
Good luck.
>>> Any valid CL code has to compile flawlessly and run to spec. When CLOS
>>> was developed as a CL library, it was made of valid CL code.
>>
>> When CLOS was in this state, that was long ago.
>
> Time is irrelevant. Valid CL code is valid CL code.
If time is irrelevant, then don't complain about me posting X minutes
after you.
>> You can't redefine standard Lisp macros and functions. Doing so renders the
>> program nonconforming to the ANSI Common Lisp standard. If you want to have a
>> parallel CLOS whose elements are named by symbols which are similar to those of
>> CLOS, it has to live in its own package.
>
> If this were true, then it would have been impossible to create CLOS in
> the first place.
There is so far exactly one ANSI standard codifying Common Lisp. That standard
has CLOS in it. Before that standard, there was a draft language, which went
through changes. The predecessors to CLOS were obviously not developed in ANSI
CL, which did not exist. Those predecesors are not valid ANSI CL code.
No program conforming to 1994 ANSI Common Lisp can redefine the bindings of the
standard symbols in the common-lisp package.
The experimentation laeding to CLOS was done in dialects which preceded ANSI
Common Lisp, which did not have CLOS support in the compiler, and did not
already have, say, a defclass symbol in the common-lisp package bound to a
macro (if indeed they even had a common-lisp package!).
Time might not be relevant, but software and language version is relevant.
Doh.
Seamus MacRae
> On 2009-05-22, Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.nospam> wrote:
>> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2009-05-22, Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.nospam> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Please stop posting five minutes after I post. Post, then wait a day or
>
> Stop posting shit
Stop being rude, insulting, vulgar, and demanding.
>> so. That way maybe I'll actually be able to get caught up.
>
> Good luck.
Your insincere remark has been ignored for the record.
>>>> Any valid CL code has to compile flawlessly and run to spec. When CLOS
>>>> was developed as a CL library, it was made of valid CL code.
>>> When CLOS was in this state, that was long ago.
>> Time is irrelevant. Valid CL code is valid CL code.
>
> If time is irrelevant, then don't complain about me posting X minutes
> after you.
Time is irrelevant to some things and relevant to others. Or had the
possibility of such a thing never occurred to you?
>>> You can't redefine standard Lisp macros and functions. Doing so renders the
>>> program nonconforming to the ANSI Common Lisp standard. If you want to have a
>>> parallel CLOS whose elements are named by symbols which are similar to those of
>>> CLOS, it has to live in its own package.
>> If this were true, then it would have been impossible to create CLOS in
>> the first place.
>
> There is so far exactly one ANSI standard codifying Common Lisp. That standard
> has CLOS in it.
That is clearly impossible, since that standard was published in 1986
and CLOS was still being developed into 1988. Unless you mean to suggest
that the specification for CLOS, published in 1988, was then couriered
via time machine to an ANSI committee at or prior to the date of 1986 so
that it could be included in the CL standard, then you shall have to
admit you are mistaken.
[much deleted that was dependent on a false premise]
> Doh.
My sentiments exactly.
Arne Vajhøj
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2009-05-22, Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.nospam> wrote:
>>> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2009-05-22, Seamus MacRae <smacr...@live.ca.nospam> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Please stop posting five minutes after I post. Post, then wait a day or
>>
>> Stop posting shit
>
> Stop being rude, insulting, vulgar, and demanding.
>
>>> so. That way maybe I'll actually be able to get caught up.
>>
>> Good luck.
>
> Your insincere remark has been ignored for the record.
How can you both ignore something *and* reply to it at the
same time??
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
> That is clearly impossible, since that standard was published in 1986
> and CLOS was still being developed into 1988. Unless you mean to suggest
> that the specification for CLOS, published in 1988, was then couriered
> via time machine to an ANSI committee at or prior to the date of 1986 so
> that it could be included in the CL standard, then you shall have to
> admit you are mistaken.
One of the actual Lisp knowledgeable will have to correct me if
I am wrong but I thought that the ANSI committee started the
work in 1986 and completed in 1992/94.
Arne
Seamus MacRae
I have many mysterious powers, not the least of which is apparently the
capacity to tie *you* in knots with what was meant to be a simple and
humorous remark.
Seamus MacRae
> Seamus MacRae wrote:
>> That is clearly impossible, since that standard was published in 1986
>> and CLOS was still being developed into 1988. Unless you mean to
>> suggest that the specification for CLOS, published in 1988, was then
>> couriered via time machine to an ANSI committee at or prior to the
>> date of 1986 so that it could be included in the CL standard, then you
>> shall have to admit you are mistaken.
>
> One of the actual Lisp knowledgeable will have to correct me if
I am not.
gugamilare
Don't you know the difference between being a liar and being mistaken?
Every time someone says you are mistaken, you listen that you are a
liar and get angry about it without any motive.
You are not a liar, but you are mistaken. Common Lisp was made ANSI in
1994:
http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/common-lisp.html
http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/detail?product_id=56214
And CLOS IS part of it:
http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/07_.htm
Seamus MacRae
> On 23 maio, 02:36, Seamus MacRae <smacrae...@live.ca.nospam> wrote:
>>> One of the actual Lisp knowledgeable will have to correct me if
>>> I am wrong but I thought that [you're a liar, Seamus!]
>> I am not.
>
More personal attacks? Why can you not focus on the matters that are
actually relevant here, such as CLOS.
In fact, hadn't you earlier declared that you were quitting this thread?
Yet you have made several posts in the past 48 hours.
> liar and get angry about it without any motive.
I do not get angry; I calmly point out how illogical your ad hominem
attacks are. They do not prove that Lisp is superior to Java, or furnish
any support at all for that conclusion. Indeed, they are entirely
irrelevant to the conclusion you wish people to draw.
> [another ad hominem attack deleted]
I found (and, unfortunately, lost again) a reference to CL being
standardized in 1986. Your implication that there is no such reference
is an implication that I lied about having found one, and therefore
constitutes yet another personal attack.
Furthermore, no such remarks are valid arguments in favor of Lisp over
Java; indeed, even if your accusations about me were true, they still
would not provide a reason for considering Lisp to be superior to Java,
and I would continue to maintain that it is not.
Your logic is lacking, and you will convince no-one of Lisp's alleged
superiority as long as that remains the case. (Not that your arguments
becoming more rational would guarantee anything. But it would improve
your odds, which are presently a flat zero.)
[rest deleted unread]