scripting in CL -- please comment
in [Lisp]
|
From: Tamas K Papp on 4 Dec 2009 11:02 On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:08:42 -0800, Pillsy wrote: > On Dec 4, 5:34 am, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] >> I would appreciate if people could comment on the code. It is nothing >> complicated and runs fine, I just want to learn the idiomatic way to >> use CL for scripting. > > You really like those TAGBODYs and GOs don't you? :) Yes, guilty as charged :-) I started using TAGBODYs for certain macros, and then they crept into my simple code too. At the moment I don't think of this as a stylistic mistake (it seems to be the clearest way to express what I am doing), but I am open to arguments. >> For example, is line-by-line (see below) the recommended way to >> redirect >> a stream to a file? > > That's how I've always done it. I never even realized that READ-LINE had > that second return value; that almost makes up for the way it mixes > optional and keyword arguments. [...] I was thinking about how READ-SEQUENCE could perhaps be more efficient, with a preallocated buffer that I just reuse. But I guess that a lot of buffering is done at the OS level already, so maybe READ-LINE is not that bad. Anyhow, it doesn't matter for my purposes at the moment. Tamas
From: Pillsy on 4 Dec 2009 11:44 On Dec 4, 11:02 am, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:08:42 -0800, Pillsy wrote: > > On Dec 4, 5:34 am, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > >> I would appreciate if people could comment on the code. It is nothing > >> complicated and runs fine, I just want to learn the idiomatic way to > >> use CL for scripting. > > You really like those TAGBODYs and GOs don't you? :) > Yes, guilty as charged :-) I started using TAGBODYs for certain > macros, and then they crept into my simple code too. At the moment I > don't think of this as a stylistic mistake (it seems to be the > clearest way to express what I am doing), but I am open to arguments. I think they're at least as clear as the alternatives. I eventually wound up writing a little library of functions and macros for use in scripts (DO-LINES is one of them) and dumping a script- oriented SBCL image with it and CL-PPCRE and the right command-line options, for when I need to write scripts. But now I really want to try out ECL.... Cheers, Pillsy
From: fortunatus on 4 Dec 2009 12:43 On Dec 4, 11:44 am, Pillsy <pillsb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I eventually wound up writing a little library of functions and macros > for use in scripts (DO-LINES is one of them) and dumping a script- > oriented SBCL image with it and CL-PPCRE and the right command-line > options, for when I need to write scripts. Me too, probably we all do - my version of DO-LINES can either do READs on each and bind variables, or provide line as a string, or provide lines as a stream, and optionally require a match for lines to process. It's easy enough to put WHENs in the body to do other matches. (with-each-line-do (in-stream (&rest vars-to-read-from-line) I also have a script writing macro that transfers command line arguments into local binidings
From: fortunatus on 4 Dec 2009 12:57 I'm not doing too well with the keyboard today! That previous post was supposed to read: Me too - my version of DO-LINES can either do READs on each and bind variables, or provide line as a string, or provide lines as a stream, and optionally require a match for lines to process. It's easy enough to put WHENs in the body to do other matches. (with-each-line-read (in-strm (val1 val2 ...) :match "matchstring") ...) or (with-each-line-read (in-strm () :match "matchstring" :linestring text-strg) ...) etc. I also have a script writing macro that transfers command line arguments into local binidings (define-script my-script ((arg1 "-flagForArg1") ...) ... ) So the command line looks like SBCL -load <file> -eval (my-script) -flagForArg1 <arg1Value>
From: Juanjo on 5 Dec 2009 04:08
On Dec 4, 4:37 pm, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:20:07 -0800, fortunatus wrote: > > You could replace the tagbody with simple LOOP and LOOP-FINSH, or you > > could use the complex LOOP keywords like DO and WHILE. But frankly I > > find your TAGBODY and GO to be quite clear as it is, even probably more > > clear than the complex loop keywords would be. Otherwise I think your > > code is great! > > > By the way, would you mind posting what you did for yourECLexec? > > Thanks! > > > (loop > > :do (multiple-value-bind ... ) > > :while line > > :do (if missing-new-line (...) (...)) > > See this nice writeup:http://blog.s21g.com/articles/1649 > > I just fired up anECL, and used > > (compile-file "savebody.lisp" :system-p t) > (c:build-program "savebody" :lisp-files '("savebody.o")) > > but apparently you can do much more complex stuff. And the whole > executable is really small. ECLjust rocks. For more complex programs, the ASDF extensions are probably better: http://ecls.sourceforge.net/new-manual/ch16.html I am really happy that you are satisfied with it! It would be nice if you could share your experience somewhere in the wiki, for instance opening a page in the success stories section of the wiki http://ecls.wikispaces.com/ |