A question (confusion) about closure
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: You want abbreviations? You can't handle abbreviations!
Next: Hot Shop Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Watches - Audemars Piguet Minimum Price
From: xahlee on 7 May 2008 10:50 On May 6, 12:57 am, Didier Verna <did...(a)xemacs.org> wrote: «Emacs Lisp is probably the worst Lisp dialect ever. You shouldn't try to learn Lisp from Emacs Lisp...» Dear Didier, i started to read comp.lang.lisp since 1998 or 1999. I don't actually read it that much, but usually in periodic bursts, perhaps few times a year, few weeks per bout, i'd come in and read a lot, sometimes post too. Thru the years, i have come to know quite a few regulars. For example, Erik Naggum, Kent Pitman, Kenny, Rainer, at least 3 Christophers, Tims Bradshaw, 2 Pascals, Mark Tarver, Brian Harvey, William Clinger, Dorai Sitaram, Richard Fateman, Duane Rettig, Richard Gabriel, David Lamkins, Barry Margolin, john harrop, Coby Beck, Joe Marshall, Nils Goesche... and many more (won't be bothering to put full effort to make a listful here... ) Some have come and gone, as is the ways of newsgroup and life. Not that i love them all. Some i read, some i swear off, many i have exchanged missives. In general, it was fun. I wish them well. When next time i have nothing to do i shall write a brief of Who's Who of comp.lang.lisp, detailing each's deeds, persona, trivia. Certainly, it can function as a bible of who knows what, who's more fluffy, who's fun, who's serious, who's got nothing to do all day, who's man of few words. however, you seem to have crawled out of the woodwork into my awareness today. May i ask, your credential please? As a way of introduction of myself, perhaps i can show you this essay of mine: • The Concepts and Confusions of Prefix, Infix, Postfix and Fully Functional Notations http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/notations.html Regarding your contemplation and regurgitation on the issues of modernization of emacs lisp, and or emacs vs xemacs, please you peruse: • Modernization of Emacs Lisp http://xahlee.org/emacs/modernization_of_elisp.html • My Experience of Emacs vs Xemacs http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs_vs_xemacs.html Regarding your patronizing concern and officious advice of learning Common Lisp, you might want to be acquainted with the fact i have no interest in learning Common Lisp whatsoever. Thank you. Xah xah(a)xahlee.org ∑ http://xahlee.org/ ☄
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 7 May 2008 11:29 Didier Verna <didier(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes: > "John Thingstad" <jpthing(a)online.no> wrote: > >> emacs is a evolved system that worked the whole time while they added >> code. If you had 'designed' it with the current features I doubt if it >> would ever have worked in the first place. > > If not in the first place, emacs lisp code could have evolved if elisp > itself had; but that didn't really happen. At some point (I mean right > now), perhaps starting from scratch again would be better than > refactoring. > > >> Another question is if OO design would have made it 'better' or just >> more 'familiar'. > > Right. Not all parts would necessarily benefit from object > orientation, but some definitely would. What's more (at least in the > case of XEmacs), some parts already *are* object-oriented; just not in > an OO language which is a real PITA. Refactoring those parts with a > more modern tool underneath would not be difficult, because the design > is already there. I don't see what's the problem. Lisp is a programmable programming language. There's nothing easier than to define an OO system in Lisp. Do Xemacs hackers need to learn about defmacro? If you already have implemented some OO patterns manually, it would be quite easy to just define the macros to formalize these patterns, and progressively replace manual patterns with macro calls. When it'll be all done, you will be able to change the implementation of these macros if needed. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Didier Verna on 7 May 2008 11:48 pjb(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote: >> Right. Not all parts would necessarily benefit from object >> orientation, but some definitely would. What's more (at least in the >> case of XEmacs), some parts already *are* object-oriented; just not >> in an OO language which is a real PITA. Refactoring those parts with >> a more modern tool underneath would not be difficult, because the >> design is already there. Note that here I was talking about the C layer mostly. > Do Xemacs hackers need to learn about defmacro? [ That's XEmacs ] defwhat ? -- 5th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP 2008, July 7: http://elw.bknr.net/2008/ Didier Verna, didier(a)lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (0)1 44 08 01 85 94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France Fax.+33 (0)1 53 14 59 22 didier(a)xemacs.org
From: Didier Verna on 7 May 2008 11:51 I wrote: > defwhat ? Ah! defmaquereau. Sorry, French joke. -- 5th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP 2008, July 7: http://elw.bknr.net/2008/ Didier Verna, didier(a)lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (0)1 44 08 01 85 94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France Fax.+33 (0)1 53 14 59 22 didier(a)xemacs.org
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 7 May 2008 11:56
Didier Verna <didier(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes: > pjb(a)informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote: > >>> Right. Not all parts would necessarily benefit from object >>> orientation, but some definitely would. What's more (at least in the >>> case of XEmacs), some parts already *are* object-oriented; just not >>> in an OO language which is a real PITA. Refactoring those parts with >>> a more modern tool underneath would not be difficult, because the >>> design is already there. > > Note that here I was talking about the C layer mostly. Ah, sorry, I didn't realize. Indeed, if XEmacs is written at 85% in C, it would be hard to do anything with it... >> Do Xemacs hackers need to learn about defmacro? > > [ That's XEmacs ] defwhat ? However, there are also object systems written for C. Objective-C is an obvious one. COS another with some influences from Objective-C and some from CLOS: http://sourceforge.net/projects/cos Good luck ;-) -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ |