Filtered functions
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: [ANN] Filtered functions
Next: Filtered functions.
From: Pascal Costanza on 6 Dec 2009 19:20 Alessio Stalla wrote: > On Dec 6, 4:06 am, Raffael Cavallaro > <raffaelcavall...(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > [snip] >> Not merely related, but central to this discussion. Your "analysis" is >> just spite. Since your extension to CLOS was not well received, then no >> one's should be. > > I'm much more on Pascal's side than Kenny's in this discussion, but... > why do you keep saying the Cells is not well received? I don't believe > so. There are many applications and libraries that use Cells. > As for it not being publication-quality and well documented... writing > and documenting Cells is not Kenny's main job, while writing > publications is part of Pascal's job; if his software and > documentation weren't publication-quality, he wouldn't be doing a good > job. The fact that he and his colleagues go to extra lengths to make > their software publicly available and running on multiple CL > implementations is of course very appreciated, not everyone would do > such a thing. I think it's actually important that we do this, but it's true, not everybody thinks so... Pascal -- My website: http://p-cos.net Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
From: Ron Garret on 6 Dec 2009 20:03 In article <7o3000F3o4fa7U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pascal Costanza <pc(a)p-cos.net> wrote: > Ron Garret wrote: > > In article > > <e5e844ff-c527-4aba-b861-fbe2653ae0d7(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, > > Juanjo <juanjose.garciaripoll(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 6, 3:17 am, Pascal Costanza <p...(a)p-cos.net> wrote: > >>> Ron Garret wrote: > >>>> In article <7o0asgF3l7u6...(a)mid.individual.net>, > >>>> Pascal Costanza <p...(a)p-cos.net> wrote: > >>>>> So how do you want to specify that when using def-subclass? > >>>> In the exact same way: by providing a mechanism to specify a total > >>>> ordering on the sub-classes of a given class, just as you provide a > >>>> mechanism to specify a total ordering on filters. (Exactly what that > >>>> mechanism would be is TBD.) > >>> ...but then it will end up as being more or less the same, except for > >>> difference in surface syntax. That's not that interesting. > >> Ron's solution may even be _worse_. If you specify the partial order > >> outside the filtered function definition, then that order will apply > >> to _all_ methods that use those filters. Instead, if the order is set > >> up in the filtered function itself, it is local and the same filters > >> can be "recycled". > > > > Hm, that's a good point. I had it tacitly in my mind that there would > > be only one global ordering for the subclasses of any single class (with > > the default being the order in which they were defined) but that does > > seem like it could be overly constraining. Of course, nothing prevents > > you from designing an API that allows you to define different orderings > > for different methods, or even for each individual argument for a > > method, but I don't see offhand how to do that without losing the > > elegant simplicity that made subclasses attractive (to me) in the first > > place. > > > > So I guess that's the answer: the reason filtered functions are cool is > > that they solve (or at least side-step) the problem of having to define > > a total order on non-disjoint subclasses for every argument of every > > generic function that uses them. > > Indeed, that's a very excellent summary. (I wish I could have worded it > this way myself.) Thanks! You are welcome to co-opt my phraseology :-) rg
From: Kenneth Tilton on 6 Dec 2009 22:45 Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Pascal Costanza wrote: >>> I will surely ignore you again soon enough. >> This would be a non-ignoring ignore according to group terminology. > > Or (declare (ignorable kenny)) as we say here... > > You wuss! C'mon, (declare (ignore.... wait... pwahahahhaah!!!... that's it!! You dopes can't bring yourselves not to read me! I am like a terrible traffic accident, we have to look! I fell better now. kt -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf
From: Ron Garret on 6 Dec 2009 23:51 In article <4b1c7a65$0$22508$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I am like a terrible traffic accident, You got that right. rg
From: Kenneth Tilton on 7 Dec 2009 04:31
Ron Garret wrote: > In article <4b1c7a65$0$22508$607ed4bc(a)cv.net>, > Kenneth Tilton <kentilton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am like a terrible traffic accident, > > You got that right. > > rg No, no, no. Now you have to add something to my wisecrack. I thought you wanted to be a writer! kt -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf |