"C-like" syntax for Lisp in less than 100 lines of code
in [Lisp]
|
From: Mario S. Mommer on 24 Apr 2010 17:42 Jorge Gajon <gajon(a)gajon.org> writes: > What I'm actually afraid is getting lured into "this new plugin", and > then this "other cool plugin", oh! and there's this other one!. [...] > Dangerous stuff. Look, it is fun, it makes you productive, and it doesn't hurt. It makes your head spin, but not in a way you'll regret. Where's the problem? :-)
From: Tim Bradshaw on 24 Apr 2010 18:08 On 2010-04-24 22:42:29 +0100, Mario S. Mommer said: > Look, it is fun, it makes you productive, and it doesn't hurt. It may be fun, but I can speak from some experience when I say that the endless cycle of "let's just find another extension to play with" is *not* productive. Indeed, if it wasn't for Emacs I'm reasonably certain I would be in charge of the world by now.
From: Scott L. Burson on 25 Apr 2010 00:21 On Apr 22, 8:32 am, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavall...(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > > The language needs to be sold macros-first if it is to have any chance > of convincing newcomers that fully parenthesized syntax is a good > thing. Yes! An excellent point. -- Scott
From: Jorge Gajon on 25 Apr 2010 13:07 On 2010-04-24, Pascal J. Bourguignon <pjb(a)informatimago.com> wrote: > Jorge Gajon <gajon(a)gajon.org> writes: > >> On 2010-04-24, Pascal J. Bourguignon <pjb(a)informatimago.com> wrote: >>> Jorge Gajon <gajon(a)gajon.org> writes: >>> >>>> On 2010-04-22, Peter Keller <psilord(a)merlin.cs.wisc.edu> wrote: >>>>> I am a staunch vim user, to say the least. However, after patches I >>>>> was giving back to various lisp projects were rejected with the reason >>>>> "format it in SLIME or else". I bit the bullet and simply learned emacs >>>>> for my Lisp IDE. I'm happy I did this. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Peter, >>>> >>>> I'm an avid Vim user as well, and I've been using "Limp" with a few >>>> modifications�. I've been playing a little bit with Emacs and SLIME, and >>>> I can clearly see that the Emacs platform is much more powerful and that >>>> there's nothing like SLIME available to VIM. >>>> >>>> However, I've been hesitant to completely immerse myself into Emacs >>>> mainly because I'm afraid that I will spend endless hours learning and >>>> customizing it, without gaining a significant advantage over Vim. >>> >>> You could. But you wouldn't have to, to benefit from emacs lisp. >>> Really, I usually don't spend any time on emacs customization, in the >>> course of a project. On the other hand, I may spend a few minutes to >>> write project specific emacs lisp functions, to help editing or >>> generating project specific stuff. >>> >> >> Pascal, when you say "...help editing or generating project specific >> stuff", do you mean text templates that are expanded in place and you >> fill the blanks, or do you mean something similar to keyboard macros to >> avoid repetition, or a combination of them. > > The former. I don't use keyboard macros, since I'm totally at ease with > emacs lisp programming, I do what users would do with keyboard macros > writing emacs functions. > > > Here are some typical example. > > - The first would be a command to set different faces to different log > level in an application specific log file (which application issued a > lot of logs in debugging mode, so that it was really important to be > able to distinguish them by color to make sense of them). > > (defun xxxxxx-log-fontify-buffer () > (interactive) > (remove-all-properties) > (dolines (lstart lend) > (goto-char lstart) > (when (looking-at "\\(DEBUG\\|INFO\\|NOTICE\\|WARNING\\|ERROR\\) ") > (let* ((level (match-string 1)) > (face (cond > ((string= level "DEBUG") 'xxxxxx-message-level-debug) > ((string= level "INFO") 'xxxxxx-message-level-info) > ((string= level "NOTICE") 'xxxxxx-message-level-notice) > ((string= level "WARNING") 'xxxxxx-message-level-warning) > ((string= level "ERROR") 'xxxxxx-message-level-error)))) > ;; (message "%S %S %S %S" level face lstart lend) > (when face (facemenu-set-face face lstart lend)))))) > > > (This could have been done with normal font-lock keywords, but it was > too slow given the size of the log files). > > Also there's a function that set as an emacs attribute attached to > each log line, a log object, identifying the log message in the > sources (since there was no identification of the log message other > than its pattern, not to affraid the users). So that I could easily > jump from the log line to the corresponding source line. > > > - a function that would take a C++ message sending ("member function > call"), and transform it into sending a message to a scheduler object > with a boost::bind wrapping the original message send. (Transforming > the original message send into an asynchronous one). Of course, such > a feature would be implemented at the programming language level (ie. > with lisp macros), instead of inlining it in the source, but we can > use emacs lisp function to "macro expand" the target language. > > > - a funnier set of emacs commands were used to switch between two > representations of a function definition in a language where there was > no function definition available. Only eval(string) was availble, so > that I defined a syntax to define a function, and the function > parameters were passed thru global variables like in BASIC, and the > function body was stored into a string named by the function. The > commands switched between the two forms: > > function f(input a,inout b,output c){ > b=b+1; > c=a*2; > } > > <-> > > a=null; // input of f > b=null; // inout of f > c=null; // output of f > f="b=b+1;c=a*2"; > > to try to recover some mental sanity... > > I didn't write the switch for function calls, (ie between f(i,j,k) and > a=i;b=j;eval(f);k=c;) but it could have been done with some more > syntactic analysis of this dumb language. > > > - finally, one can also quite easily interface with underlying programs, > such as debuggers, writing emacs commands to drive the debugger or > other programs with a single key. For example, I have: > > > (defun clisp-debug-keys () > "Binds locally some keys to send clisp debugger commands to the inferior-lisp > <f5> step into > <f6> next > <f7> step over > <f8> continue > " > (interactive) > (macrolet ((cmd (string) > `(lambda () > (interactive) > (comint-send-string (inferior-lisp-proc) > ,(format "%s\n" string))))) > (local-set-key (kbd "<f5>") (cmd ":s")) > (local-set-key (kbd "<f6>") (cmd ":n")) > (local-set-key (kbd "<f7>") (cmd ":o")) > (local-set-key (kbd "<f8>") (cmd ":c")))) > > (defun sbcl-debug-keys () > "Binds locally some keys to send clisp debugger commands to the inferior-lisp > <f5> step into > <f6> next > <f7> step over > <f8> continue > " > (interactive) > (macrolet ((cmd (string) > `(lambda () > (interactive) > (comint-send-string (inferior-lisp-proc) > ,(format "%s\n" string))))) > (local-set-key (kbd "<f5>") (cmd "step")) > (local-set-key (kbd "<f6>") (cmd "next")) > (local-set-key (kbd "<f7>") (cmd "over")) > (local-set-key (kbd "<f8>") (cmd "out")))) > > (defun allegro-debug-keys () > "Binds locally some keys to send allegro debugger commands to the inferior-lisp > <f5> step into > <f7> step over > <f8> continue > " > (interactive) > (macrolet ((cmd (string) > `(lambda () > (interactive) > (comint-send-string (inferior-lisp-proc) > ,(format "%s\n" string))))) > (local-set-key (kbd "<f5>") (cmd ":scont 1")) > ;; (local-set-key (kbd "<f6>") (cmd )) > (local-set-key (kbd "<f7>") (cmd ":sover")) > (local-set-key (kbd "<f8>") (cmd ":continue")))) > > > In this specific case of Common Lisp, of course SLIME does it for you > already. When I started programming in Lisp, SLIME didn't exist yet. > > >> Or (more exciting), you mean something like CL macros where you call >> it with some arguments and depending on the arguments it will 'expand' >> into different source code. > > Also this. For example, you may find in my sources in inferior > programming languages, emacs lisp code in comments, that will generate > the following inferior language code. Typically for repeatitive stuff. > For example: > > /* > (insert-fields '(visible color width height)) > */ > > private $visible=null; > public function setVisible($aValue){ $this->visible=$aValue; return($this); } > public function getVisible(){ return($this->visible); } > private $color=null; > public function setColor($aValue){ $this->color=$aValue; return($this); } > public function getColor(){ return($this->color); } > private $width=null; > public function setWidth($aValue){ $this->width=$aValue; return($this); } > public function getWidth(){ return($this->width); } > private $height=null; > public function setHeight($aValue){ $this->height=$aValue; return($this); } > public function getHeight(){ return($this->height); } > > > But I may also use the same technique to generate more complex code, for > example optimized decision trees (embedded ifs). > > > Notice there's an emacs lisp pre-processor: > > http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~ali/elpp/cgen.el > http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~ali/elpp/elpp.el > http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~ali/elpp/elppc.el > > Basically it allows you to insert elisp in your C code and to > autogenerate C code from elisp s-expressions. (I guess you could apply > it to other programming languages too). > > But then your sources wouldn't be C sources, but C+emacs lisp, so it > would be harder to commit them in your employer's repositories. > Commiting comments with emacs lisp code is already hard enough... > > Thank you Pascal, for these detailed examples. The first two examples were specially interesting to me. I've superficially used Emacs before, I know the basic commands, but I will start learning it deeper now. I'm more convinced now that there it can be worth the effort. Best regards.
From: Jorge Gajon on 25 Apr 2010 13:12
On 2010-04-24, Mario S. Mommer <m_mommer(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Jorge Gajon <gajon(a)gajon.org> writes: >> What I'm actually afraid is getting lured into "this new plugin", and >> then this "other cool plugin", oh! and there's this other one!. > [...] >> Dangerous stuff. > > Look, it is fun, it makes you productive, and it doesn't hurt. It makes > your head spin, but not in a way you'll regret. Where's the problem? :-) I don't know. Without a proper context it would seem like you are trying to convince me to smoke a joint :) |