Newest at the top
| 2025-03-17 18:11:37 +0100 | <geekosaur> | parentetical purity was already destroyed by interlisp, that horse escaped the barn a long time ago 😛 |
| 2025-03-17 18:11:01 +0100 | <mauke> | ok, you got me :-) |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:52 +0100 | <EvanR> | I'd say it's a much as joke as lisp-2 is |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:41 +0100 | <EvanR> | oh |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:39 +0100 | <mauke> | I didn't use /g! |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:29 +0100 | <EvanR> | I'd say it's a much a joke a lisp-2 is xD |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:09 +0100 | <mauke> | s/ as / a / |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:04 +0100 | <ski> | presumably six separate namespaces, c_wraith |
| 2025-03-17 18:10:02 +0100 | <mauke> | c_wraith: I'd say it's as much as joke as lisp-2 is |
| 2025-03-17 18:09:55 +0100 | <EvanR> | yes clojure ruins the parenthetical purity |
| 2025-03-17 18:09:41 +0100 | <ski> | (and, i think, Clojure too, with semantic difference ?) |
| 2025-03-17 18:09:24 +0100 | <ski> | Racket already embraces different brackets, albeit only as a stylistic choice |
| 2025-03-17 18:08:59 +0100 | <c_wraith> | lisp-6 is something I recognize as a joke (lisp-1 vs lisp-2), but I have no idea if it means something specific |
| 2025-03-17 18:08:48 +0100 | <EvanR> | different bracket syntax would disturb the parenthetical purity of the lisp syntax |
| 2025-03-17 18:08:25 +0100 | <ski> | (or `$(bar [e| foo |])' or somesuch, perchance) |
| 2025-03-17 18:07:46 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@95.90.214.149) |
| 2025-03-17 18:07:31 +0100 | <ski> | yes |
| 2025-03-17 18:07:19 +0100 | <ski> | it's correct that you can't just replace `foo' by its definition in `(bar foo)', if `bar' is a macro, which could lead one to want to use e.g. a different bracket syntax for special forms and macro invokations, than for procedure calls |
| 2025-03-17 18:07:09 +0100 | <mauke> | in a lisp-6 like perl, sub list($list, @list) { my %list = map +($_ => $list), @list; \%list } is perfectly cromulent code |
| 2025-03-17 18:07:03 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@95.90.214.149) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-03-17 18:05:45 +0100 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) euphores |
| 2025-03-17 18:05:09 +0100 | <ski> | even without macros, things tend to need to be interpreted in context. `(a,b)' in an expression context, means something else than in a type context. in one context `Foo' could be a module, while in another it could be a type constructor, or a data constructor in yet another. in Lisp-2's, like Common Lisp, `(lambda (list) (list list))' is a procedure constructing a singleton list from its input argument |
| 2025-03-17 18:04:10 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@95.90.214.149) |
| 2025-03-17 18:03:56 +0100 | jespada | (~jespada@2800:a4:22cd:2500:4d25:68ba:28dd:cc11) jespada |
| 2025-03-17 18:03:52 +0100 | euleritian | (~euleritia@dynamic-176-006-138-112.176.6.pool.telefonica.de) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-03-17 18:02:17 +0100 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d108-173-18-100.abhsia.telus.net) machinedgod |
| 2025-03-17 18:01:44 +0100 | <EvanR> | "let over lambda" my ass |
| 2025-03-17 18:01:29 +0100 | target_i | (~target_i@user/target-i/x-6023099) target_i |
| 2025-03-17 18:01:25 +0100 | <EvanR> | but it's a lisp weenie! |
| 2025-03-17 18:01:16 +0100 | <EvanR> | what a bait and switch, I thought it was going to rail against lisp |
| 2025-03-17 18:00:38 +0100 | <mauke> | "Any language that uses infix syntax is reducing the possibilities of its abstractions in many ways." ... yeah, call me when common lisp supports ((f x) y) |
| 2025-03-17 18:00:37 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2025-03-17 18:00:33 +0100 | <ski> | only the first section has that title. the next is about something else |
| 2025-03-17 17:59:49 +0100 | <EvanR> | I read the first chapter and thought it was end of it. But it's that my monitor cuts off the monofilament scrollbar UI on the right |
| 2025-03-17 17:57:19 +0100 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-03-17 17:56:24 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee |
| 2025-03-17 17:55:13 +0100 | tzh | (~tzh@c-76-115-131-146.hsd1.or.comcast.net) tzh |
| 2025-03-17 17:55:00 +0100 | <ski> | not entirely convinced by the macro argument, either |
| 2025-03-17 17:54:58 +0100 | <mauke> | ¹) well, some restrictions. but you can arbitrarily nest statements and expressions inside each other |
| 2025-03-17 17:54:28 +0100 | <ski> | yes |
| 2025-03-17 17:54:27 +0100 | <mauke> | for example, perl has both infix operators *and* no¹ restrictions on what you can nest |
| 2025-03-17 17:53:47 +0100 | <mauke> | that article looks a bit confused |
| 2025-03-17 17:49:50 +0100 | ski | . o O ( "Let Over Lambda - Lisp Is Not Functional" <https://letoverlambda.com/index.cl/guest/chap5.html#sec_1> ) |
| 2025-03-17 17:48:32 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <Bowuigi> Uh isn't that what base64 does? |
| 2025-03-17 17:47:34 +0100 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) euphores |
| 2025-03-17 17:38:45 +0100 | euphores | (~SASL_euph@user/euphores) (Quit: Leaving.) |
| 2025-03-17 17:37:50 +0100 | <EvanR> | but what's the fun in that |
| 2025-03-17 17:37:46 +0100 | <EvanR> | ok we have better ways to do that, using Word32 or V4 Word8 |
| 2025-03-17 17:36:52 +0100 | <EvanR> | and later stitch it back together for output |
| 2025-03-17 17:35:53 +0100 | <EvanR> | but if you wanted to process UTF-8 text without fully decoding it, you could map the 1-4 byte code units to a number and put that number in the Char data, looking like gibberish |