What is the best way to process this list
in [Lisp]
|
From: mdj on 6 Jan 2010 03:00 On Jan 6, 10:09 am, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > | Happily, the person to whom the remark was addressed was able to see > | that it was. > > I hope he was able to see exactly how wrong an example your code was in > the context. No you don't. You're only interested in foolish bickering. The example (whilst ostensibly incorrect) at least prompted me to read the spec and confirm how list based structures are implemented. > |> To repeat what I said, the code you posted illustrates what one your > |> particular lisp implementation changes the layout of existing > |> instances after a structure definition has changed. > | > | Actually it shows exactly the opposite, that my Lisp does NOT change > | the layout of existing instances. > > No. It does not show that. Are you stupid? That's exactly what it shows. > | I am pleased to see that the First Law of Madhu (to wit: Madhu is > | always Wrong about Everything) will not have to be revised. > > The law you seem to prove is that you are clueless AND wrong EVERYTIME > you post anything related to DEFSTRUCT (as with other parts of Common > Lisp) Proof? The only thing I can see proof of is that you lose your ability to think rationally when someone challenges you. And yes everyone, I realise I'm assuming a preexisting ability to think that can be lost. > | You need to pay closer attention. The result I exhibited was > | inconsistent with the underlying implementation being either an ALIST or > | a PLIST. > > No. You did not exhibit that. You exhhibited "undefined behaviour" in a > Lisp implementation where a LIST based representation was NOT requested. Fairly obviously, if you change a structure definition, the results this has IS undefined. In Ron's example the result is fairly innocuous, as effectively all that happens is the labels of two pointer offsets is changed. Of course, certain other structure redefinitions could result in fixnums being interpreted as pointers, or other spectacularly broken behaviour. > | There is actually one valid criticism of my example, and that is that > | I left out the :TYPE LIST option. So here's the correct example > > The valid criticism I made of your example was that it was irrelevant > nonsense on multiple counts. Comparing your example with the following > will only prove that. Since the original point was the comparative speed of plists vs. structures at sizes below n, the validity of your criticism seems the only thing that's irrelevant here.
From: mdj on 6 Jan 2010 04:26 On Jan 6, 6:29 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > | In Ron's example the result is fairly innocuous, as effectively all > | that happens is the labels of two pointer offsets is changed. > > This "probably means" means that the layout has changed of the original > instance after the structure got redefined. No. The values in the instance are in the same places (relative to each other), so the instance hasn't changed. > If the layout has not changed why would the printed representation change? Only the "layout" of the TYPE has changed. This means that the accessor functions have been redefined, as has it's constructor function. The print function may or may not be generated at definition time but in either case it is referring to the structures TYPE to determine the layout of instances. > Compare Point A above where Ron claimed (falsely) that I was wrong and his example > showed that his implementation did not in fact change the layout, Did change it, or didn't? Can't decide? > and you called me stupid for pointing this out? Yes
From: Madhu on 6 Jan 2010 04:33 * mdj <c2b32d97-a67b-4e76-9224-f9400c84f624(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Wed, 6 Jan 2010 01:26:53 -0800 (PST): [misinformed nonsense snipped] Take your lying dishonest bickering elsewhere. -- Thanks Madhu
From: mdj on 6 Jan 2010 04:49 On Jan 6, 7:33 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > * mdj <c2b32d97-a67b-4e76-9224-f9400c84f...(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> : > Wrote on Wed, 6 Jan 2010 01:26:53 -0800 (PST): > > [misinformed nonsense snipped] > > Take your lying dishonest bickering elsewhere. So whether or not my interpretation is correct, you can't fault it, so you call me a liar. How very enlightened of you.
From: Madhu on 6 Jan 2010 04:55
Matt, You are posting bullshit in a technical group. I assume most members have some capacity for rational critical reasoning and honesty, even if you lack it. You have demonstrated here (and earlier) that you are not honest and only interested in bickering so debate with you is a waste of time.. I am not interested in answering every of your fallacious posts or playing your "How many ways can I get this wrong so you can correct me" game. The only item I have pending is Who is Hanne Gudiken and why did you use her name when posting on Comp.lang.lisp in an earlier thread? -- Madhu * mdj <aa5cceab-a5ef-4a5f-9323-7782befb65eb(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Wed, 6 Jan 2010 01:49:30 -0800 (PST): | On Jan 6, 7:33 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: |> * mdj <c2b32d97-a67b-4e76-9224-f9400c84f...(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> : |> Wrote on Wed, 6 Jan 2010 01:26:53 -0800 (PST): |> |> [misinformed nonsense snipped] |> |> Take your lying dishonest bickering elsewhere. | | So whether or not my interpretation is correct, you can't fault it, so | you call me a liar. | | How very enlightened of you. |