Prev: Download new programs and english courses
Next: A toy example of embedding C code in lisp and vice versa
From: Tamas K Papp on 13 Jun 2010 06:17
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:08:11 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote:

> On 2010-06-13 04:03:39 +0100, Rob Warnock said:
>
>> Though if one *were* to use CL for it, SEARCH & MISMATCH would be your
>> friends. [And to a lesser extent, (FIND ... :TEST #'SEARCH) &
>> POSITION-IF.]
>
> The trouble is that they would not. What you'd have to do is to write a
> hacky pattern-matching languages which would compile down to a huge
> number of calls toe the primitives CL gives you. After some years you
> might have got to something which has all the bells and whistles of
> Perl's regexp language.

Have you considered cl-ppcre? I am sure you have, but it appears that
you are not using it, so you must find Perl better suited to this
problem overall, even when controlling for regexps. I am curious why.

Tamas
From: Tim Bradshaw on 13 Jun 2010 08:01
On 2010-06-13 11:17:59 +0100, Tamas K Papp said:

> Have you considered cl-ppcre? I am sure you have, but it appears that
> you are not using it, so you must find Perl better suited to this
> problem overall, even when controlling for regexps. I am curious why.

Pretty much because, absent some vastly improved way of writing regexps
(and though cl-ppcre's sexp syntax looks interesting, I don't think
it's enough better than Perl's syntax (assuming you are using /x) to
help), then in a program entirely dominated by regexps, everything else
is in the noise (and then, of course, perl is already on all the
systems concerned, which pushes you over the edge to using it).

In case it's not clear by now my original intent was not actually to
claim Perl was better than Lisp.

From: Elena on 14 Jun 2010 06:41
On 12 Giu, 18:12, Tim Bradshaw <t...(a)tfeb.org> wrote:
> And, like it or not, Perl is the king, queen and crown prince of this
> kind of grovelling in the mud.  You could do it in Lisp, but why would
> you?

Because it would be easier. Perl is neither the king nor the queen nor
crown prince when it comes to text processing. Emacs Lisp is.

> Still, it would clearly be preferable to live somewhere else.

Live in Emacs, then ^_^
From: Tim Bradshaw on 14 Jun 2010 08:20
On 2010-06-14 11:41:19 +0100, Elena said:

> Because it would be easier. Perl is neither the king nor the queen nor
> crown prince when it comes to text processing. Emacs Lisp is.
>
>> Still, it would clearly be preferable to live somewhere else.
>
> Live in Emacs, then ^_^

I spent almost 20 years doing that, and I am not, ever, going back. I
mean, I'd have a PhD if it wasn't for Emacs (OK, I would have a PhD if
it wasn't for Emacs and Unix).

I can recommend a good clinic to get you off it, actually. It's a
pretty unpleasant experience (the trembling, the desire to vomit, the
visions of nameless tentacled horrors mostly go away after a while, but
you never really get over the need for just one more minor mode, and
the shambling horror of RMS will haunt your dreams for ever). But once
you're clean you suddenly have an extra 8 hours a day to live in.


From: Elena on 14 Jun 2010 08:25
On 14 Giu, 12:20, Tim Bradshaw <t...(a)tfeb.org> wrote:
> I spent almost 20 years doing that, and I am not, ever, going back.  I
> mean, I'd have a PhD if it wasn't for Emacs (OK, I would have a PhD if
> it wasn't for Emacs and Unix).

Would you care to explain further, please? Do you mean learning Emacs
is a waste of time?

What's your setup today (to replace Emacs)?

Thanks.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Download new programs and english courses
Next: A toy example of embedding C code in lisp and vice versa