comp.lang.lisp Google Group

Re: #! /usr/local/bin/lisp ?

t...@nospam.dev.null (Tim X) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:05:24 UT

Another alternative that may work since your on Linux is to use the misc
binary format kernel module. I've not looked at this module for a while,
but it does allow you to set things up so that just calling the file
will execute it. For example, some years ago, I had a setup where you
could do
./myprog.java

Re: #! /usr/local/bin/lisp ?

r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:49:52 UT

+---------------
+---------------
As others have noted, you probably meant "run it with ``./script.plx''".
+---------------
+---------------
As others have noted, this is not a part of the ANSI Common Lisp
standard, but various implementations [CLISP & SBCL were already
discussed] or their users have provided ways to accomplish it,

Re: Security concerns with Common Lisp and EVAL

gmail....@lisp.linux (lisp linux) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:56:36 UT

Also have to take care of read-from-string ?
-Antony

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:59:30 UT

+---------------
+---------------
There is also a Middle Way:
[link]
[link]
[2-9] What is CDR-coding?
S-expr syntax remains unchanged. Storage for s-exprs uses
contiguous vectors where possible, links (lists of vectors)

Re: Can sub-classes initialize-instance modify base-classes slot before base's initialize-instance executes?

kentil...@gmail.com (Kenny) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:22:11 UT

I think George does not know anything about Cells. Or Adam. Or Father
Time. Or OpenLaszlo. Hell, not even KR?
<sigh>
What can I say to help? Cells cells cells cells cells?
hth, kenny

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

m...@incubus.de (Matthias Buelow) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:10:19 UT

The cons pair is the simplest mechanism that allows practical lisp
construction; McCarthy is a theoretician after all. That's also where
the beauty of Lisp lies: combining primitive mechanisms in a
comprehensible way to construct high-level concepts. If you replace that
with some opaque voodoo[1] and apply that to the other parts of lisp

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

t...@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:29:32 UT

Correct. The only difference is that you will always have the extra
space usage that a list uses (assuming a singly-linked list instead of
one implemented on top of arrays). But the latter make structure
sharing really difficult.
But CommonLisp is intended as a practical language, and increasing the

xmlisp problems

l...@worldnet.att.net (Ludovico) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:12:10 UT

Hi,
I have the example code working with windows/slime/sbcl 1.0.13/xmlisp
v2.3 but when I pull in an RSS feed (using Drakma) it looks like the 2nd
line:
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/news_rss.xsl"?>
Isn't properly handled. The example RSS file does not have this line.
Is there a solution for this?

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

xah...@gmail.com (xahlee@gmail.com) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:37:51 UT

One thing to keep in mind in this topic is the separation of syntax
and implementation.
For example, take lisp's cons. You can have a lang that walks and
quacks like cons, but the implementation can be nothing like linked
list. Conversely, many langs, in fact almost all langs, that has some
senes of list as a datatype, can implement it as linked list, array,

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

xah...@gmail.com (xahlee@gmail.com) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:21:52 UT

Exactly.
The lisp's cons forces programer to think in implementation detail
level, pretty much in the same way when lispers sneer at C or Java.
Yes. Many lisp experts has acknowledged the problem.
Note that First, Rest, Nth is not enough. There needs to be also Last,
at least. In general, when you think of lists as sequence of things as

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

xah...@gmail.com (xahlee@gmail.com) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:56:14 UT

On Oct 9, 5:09 pm, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
Not true.
For example,
• '( ... )
• `( , ,@ ... )
• #| ... |#
• [...]
etc.
It's quite fucked really.
The one language who's got uniform nested syntax without exceptions,
would be Mathematica.
Further readings:
• Fundamental Problems of Lisp

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

xah...@gmail.com (xahlee@gmail.com) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:49:51 UT

Not sure what you mean by “archaic” ones, but yes, lisp's cons and the
irregularities of its nested paren syntax are 2 fundamental problems
of lisp.
See:
• Fundamental Problems of Lisp
[link]
Plain text version follows.
------------------------------ ---

Re: cl-weblocks on trac.common-lisp.net down or replaced?

drew.cramp...@gmail.com (Drew Crampsie) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:21:06 UT

trac was probably down for you while the DNS worked itself out (we
just moved cl-net to a new box). In the future, there are appropriate
contacts listed on the front page of common-lisp.net. Please use those
(ad...@common-lisp.net would be a good choice) rather than spam the
readers of c.l.l, who likely can't help, and probably don't care to

Re: Can sub-classes initialize-instance modify base-classes slot before base's initialize-instance executes?

gneun...@comcast.net (George Neuner) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:19:17 UT

I think it's time for Kenny's nap.
George

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

smallp...@juno.com (smallpond) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:16:15 UT

You could imagine a language similar to lisp in which everything is
either an atom or a null terminated list, and not having dotted pairs.
Some things would have to change (like alists) but much of the flavor
of lisp would not be affected. I don't think there would be any loss
of generality. Instead of cons you would just use list.

comp.lang.lisp Google Group

Re: #! /usr/local/bin/lisp ?

Re: #! /usr/local/bin/lisp ?

Re: Security concerns with Common Lisp and EVAL

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

Re: Can sub-classes initialize-instance modify base-classes slot *before* base's initialize-instance executes?

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

xmlisp problems

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

Re: cl-weblocks on trac.common-lisp.net down or replaced?

Re: Can sub-classes initialize-instance modify base-classes slot *before* base's initialize-instance executes?

Re: Cons cell archaic!?

Re: Can sub-classes initialize-instance modify base-classes slot before base's initialize-instance executes?

Re: Can sub-classes initialize-instance modify base-classes slot before base's initialize-instance executes?