simulating local lexical variables with symbol macros
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1
From: John Thingstad on 12 Nov 2009 05:26 The Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:54 +0530, Madhu wrote: > * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-3BD29C.15513111112009(a)news.albasani.net> : Wrote > on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:51:32 -0800: > > | It's good for more than just pedagogy (and pathology). Pascal > Costanza | has recently shown how to use it to implement hygienic > macros: > > No, this is exactly an example of `pedagogical/pathological': Ir be of > academic interest for the purpose of Costanza's tenure, but is not > interesting to CL I disagree. This article is spot on in adressing the issues which cause side effects. It is more sad to peolple like youself so unappriciative. -- John Thingstad
From: Ron Garret on 12 Nov 2009 08:01 In article <m3ws1w6q46.fsf(a)moon.robolove.meer.net>, Madhu <enometh(a)meer.net> wrote: > * Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon-E3E566.21312511112009(a)news.albasani.net> : > Wrote on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:31:26 -0800: > > |> It is sad. It seems the other old-timers are not interested in > |> correcting the intentionally misleading posts you make or pointing out > |> your dishonest debate tactics you continue to indule in. > | > | Yes, damn all those old timers. They should all be taking me to task > | for "unduling" in the dishonest debate tactic of agreeing with you. > | What is wrong with these people? > > You have introduced a typo when misstating what I've said to take away > the point I'm making. You are INDULGING, again, Are you sure? I thought I was undoling. But what do I know? Good thing I have you to set me straight because those old-timers have obviously abdicated their responsibilities. rg
From: Madhu on 12 Nov 2009 08:10 [slightly corrected supersede] * John Thingstad <77adnd7wJ-0gf2bXRVnzvQA(a)telenor.com> : Wrote on Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:26:05 -0600: |> No, this is exactly an example of `pedagogical/pathological': Ir be *It may be |> of academic interest for the purpose of Costanza's tenure, but is not |> interesting to CL | | I disagree. This article is spot on in adressing the issues which | cause side effects. It is more sad to peolple like youself so | unappriciative. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with: the part you quoted was an exchange with Ron Garret, where I'm talking about a claim which Ron made. I believe you have been misled by Ron about what I claimed is not `interesting'. I do not dispute or doubt that you or others will find Costanza's article interesting. However the point is CL's macro system is not hygienic and CL is not about restricting side effects. The fact that the CL macro system is powerful enough to implement a hygienic subset is not an especially interesting result, in the same sense that you can always use a more powerful system to build a more restricted less expressive system. You can implement other languages in CL etc. Vassil started this thread in this direction. This has echoes of Turing's results. Note while in mathematics, everybody knows 4 = 2 + 2. The result that 4 = 3 + 1 is not especially interesting. However in CS, because of Turing, it is always possible to find a point of view where 3 + 1 is `interesting', to some developer market (that will not have this knowledge), and publish a paper. This activity will always be defensible -- Madhu
From: Tamas K Papp on 12 Nov 2009 09:12 On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:40:03 +0530, Madhu wrote: > However the point is CL's macro system is not hygienic and CL is not > about restricting side effects. The fact that the CL macro system is > powerful enough to implement a hygienic subset is not an especially > interesting result, in the same sense that you can always use a more > powerful system to build a more restricted less expressive system. You > can implement other languages in CL etc. Vassil started this thread in > this direction. This has echoes of Turing's results. Note while in > mathematics, everybody knows 4 = 2 + 2. The result that 4 = 3 + 1 is > not especially interesting. However in CS, because of Turing, it is > always possible to find a point of view where 3 + 1 is `interesting', to > some developer market (that will not have this knowledge), and publish a > paper. This activity will always be defensible This paragraph indicates that either you haven't read Pascal's article, or misunderstood it completely. The result has nothing to do with Turing completeness. The paper is interesting because Pascal shows how _easy_ it is to implement the hygienic subsystem. Hint: it does not require reimplementing CL inside CL. Far from it. Go read the article. First, it was entertaining to watch to talk about things you don't understand, but the novelty is wearing out. Maybe you could understand something occasionally, just to break the monotony. Tamas
From: Madhu on 12 Nov 2009 08:57
This is not the first time you shoot an uninformed response to my posts. Earlier, you have proved you were not willing to accept or understand my answers to the questions which are already answered in the portions you cite, the only discernable purpose of your post seems to be to quote some text and add insults at the bottom * Tamas K Papp <7m2jdgF3eluaoU1(a)mid.individual.net> : Wrote on 12 Nov 2009 14:12:00 GMT: | On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:40:03 +0530, Madhu wrote: | |> However the point is CL's macro system is not hygienic and CL is not |> about restricting side effects. The fact that the CL macro system is |> powerful enough to implement a hygienic subset is not an especially |> interesting result, in the same sense that you can always use a more |> powerful system to build a more restricted less expressive system. You |> can implement other languages in CL etc. Vassil started this thread in |> this direction. This has echoes of Turing's results. Note while in |> mathematics, everybody knows 4 = 2 + 2. The result that 4 = 3 + 1 is |> not especially interesting. However in CS, because of Turing, it is |> always possible to find a point of view where 3 + 1 is `interesting', to |> some developer market (that will not have this knowledge), and publish a |> paper. This activity will always be defensible | | This paragraph indicates that either you haven't read Pascal's | article, or misunderstood it completely. No. This paragraph talks about a more general case, the specific case you lost above | The result has nothing to do with Turing completeness. The paper is | interesting because Pascal shows how _easy_ it is to implement the | hygienic subsystem. I do not dispute that you find it interesting. What is not interesting is that you can implement something less powerful and more restrictive by using a more powerful system. | Hint: it does not require reimplementing CL inside CL. This hint indicates you have not understood anything I've said. Not surprising | Far from it. Go read the article. | First, it was entertaining to watch to talk about things you don't | understand, but the novelty is wearing out. Maybe you could | understand something occasionally, just to break the monotony Instead of calling my understanding of these issues into question you should point the scanner at yourself. From your posts on linguistics it is clear that you are not interested meaningful analysis, but perhaps more in tune to your funded economics research, you are instead about providing support for an anti-intellectual environment which thwarts any real analysis. -- Madhu |