2:36:31antonvWow, http://weitz.de/hunchentoot/ doesn't provide hunchentoot documentation anymore
2:36:50ZhivagoDid he touch you somewhere inappropriate?
2:53:06myrkraverkMy very first asdf system has a name conflict whenever I re-compile it, when I load it with (ql:quickload) however, on subsequent loads, it succeeds.
2:54:23myrkraverkThat is, I have a name conflict in :common-lisp-user and :my-package when I load it with (ql:quickload :my-package) and it needs to compile source file again.
2:57:30myrkraverkI'll try to make a simple example later.
2:59:15Xachmyrkraverk: name conflicts are pretty straightforward to work out up front.
4:09:35aethPCL is more of an introduction. Common Lisp Recipes (same publisher, different author) is more of a reference. I don't think it's online. The ebook was on sale for $10 on Black Friday. So... you'd have to wait almost a year
4:16:50aethThe core language features of Common Lisp haven't been changed in over two decades. The language extensions are a mix between just as old as the language (things that didn't get in the standard, but could have) and fairly new things. They still move fairly slowly. But everything else is just like any other programming language, and it changes over time.
4:17:35aethPCL, noting where it is out of date, is still probably your best option
4:17:47aethThere are other books but they're mostly older
11:30:14jmercourisloke: How is elixir btw, how are you liking it?
11:30:29jmercourisACTION will disconnect shortly, but will check logs
11:34:15pjbjmercouris: compare: (red green blue) with {650,540,460}.
11:34:27pjbjmercouris: the first is a list of symbol, it's a symbolic expression.
11:34:39pjbjmercouris: the second is a literal vector of int, it's not a symbolic expression.
11:34:52pjbjmercouris: both represent something similar (three colors).
11:36:03pjbjmercouris: I would argue the symbolic expression is more precise, by being more fuzzy on the actual ranges of frequency, and also, ontologically, since an actual perceived color (light frequency) can be different from the actual color of the surface, under light conditions.
11:36:08Zhivagos-exp describes a particular kind of grammar.
11:36:44ZhivagoIt's not a very interesting grammar -- just one composed of atoms and forms, where a form is a list of atoms or forms.
11:37:14ZhivagoSo the examples above, such as 1 + 1 don't qualify.
11:39:25pjbjackdaniel: now you always have the ambiguity between the textual form and the read form. But formally you can accept the textual form under those definitions.
11:39:37pjbas long as you take into account the grammar of the reader macros.
11:39:53pjbOf course, this may be complex, if you redefine reader macros in #.
11:40:19pjb(#.(set-macro-character #\/ 'read-something) / what will be read?)
11:40:55ZhivagoFortunately, reader macros aren't part of the definition of symbolic expressions, so we can exclude those.
11:42:09pjbThen you consider the read form, not the textual form.
11:42:45pjbthe usual definition of sexp := atom | ( sexp… ) . wouldn't take into account circular structures.
11:43:03ZhivagoWe must certainly exclude the textual expression of CL from s-exps.
11:44:50kolbNo I have two zombie sites that *mis*-render the polished docs of my projects without me ever having opted in to that, and seemlingly no way to make them *stop*.
11:44:59ZhivagoJust go back to the Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and their Computation by Machine paper. :)