DEFSTRUCT and lexical environment
in [Lisp]
|
From: Tim Bradshaw on 16 Oct 2009 15:15 On 2009-10-16 08:14:49 +0100, Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> said: > That's right. But this is widely recognized to be a problem, not a > feature. That problem is solved in CL by making it a Lisp2 and adding > packages. But solving a problem doesn't mean it wasn't a problem. I don't think that's the case. Obviously these features help, but I think you can get by with assiduous use of MAKE-SYMBOL or GENSYM. I may be wrong.
From: Tim Bradshaw on 16 Oct 2009 15:19 On 2009-10-16 09:22:24 +0100, Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> said: > The alleged ambiguity here is can be seen as a result of an > interpretation that is based on a concept of `hygiene' as defined by > scheme doctors. However, it is not actually based on that. I have no time for Scheme at all, I like CL's macro system, yet I see the spec as ambiguous.
From: Tim Bradshaw on 16 Oct 2009 15:25 On 2009-10-16 03:03:35 +0100, Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> said: > Well, the internal evidence here suggests they may be lying through > their teeth I think you should probably stop now: you've dug yourself a pretty deep pit. I'm certainly nto going to respond further to you (I wasn't intending myself as one of the people who was there BTW: I wasn't).
From: Ron Garret on 16 Oct 2009 19:31 In article <2009101620155316807-tfb(a)cleycom>, Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)cley.com> wrote: > On 2009-10-16 08:14:49 +0100, Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> said: > > > That's right. But this is widely recognized to be a problem, not a > > feature. That problem is solved in CL by making it a Lisp2 and adding > > packages. But solving a problem doesn't mean it wasn't a problem. > > I don't think that's the case. Obviously these features help, but I > think you can get by with assiduous use of MAKE-SYMBOL or GENSYM. I > may be wrong. There are two kinds of symbol capture. GENSYM only solves one of them. Madhu's DEFSTRUCT (re-)introduces the other kind. rg
From: Vassil Nikolov on 16 Oct 2009 22:19
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:57:13 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> said: > On 2009-10-15, Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)cley.com> wrote: >> On 2009-10-15 19:32:59 +0100, Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> said: >> >>> Oh, I see, thanks. But it is pretty clear that this is an >>> unintented mistake, and there is no ambiguity (no one would >>> seriously suggest that (prog2 1 2 3) => 2 is non-conforming). >> >> Absolutely so. But it's pretty clear to almost everyone I think that >> the ambiguity around DEFSTRUCT is also an unintended mistake. > To implement Lisp (or any other language), you have to a cunning S.O.B. > who knows much more than just the body of the defining document. Silly though it is, I wish the intent of this pun was more ambiguous... ---Vassil. -- "Even when the muse is posting on Usenet, Alexander Sergeevich?" |