freenode/lisp - IRC Chatlog
Search
1:14:56
randyjohnson86
perhaps a controversial question, but how long would one normally say to become familiar with the general lisp syntax?
1:18:12
wavemode
once you start using it to make small projects you will pick it up like any other language's syntax
1:18:55
randyjohnson86
yes, I'm slowly working my way through 'a gentle introduction to symbolic computation' by touretzky
1:19:44
randyjohnson86
it's rather quite fascinating, but I still find myself making little things in python rather than practicing my lispcraft
1:21:23
Xach
I use lisp for small things because of the nicer support for interactive ongoing development and debugging.
1:24:31
no-defun-allowed
you can use lisp on the boat, on the house, on the pets, in the kitchen, there's nothing you can't do with lisp
1:30:58
randyjohnson86
I think it will take some more time to get into the rhythm of it, it's a lot to undertake in a few settings
2:38:00
aeth
I think fixnum might be one of the few where of-type is optional, but it's better just to be uniform and always have of-type there imo
2:38:26
aeth
You have to be careful for testing it because SBCL and CCL will accept more than the spec, e.g. single-float and double-float, which will fail under CLISP
2:40:14
aeth
interestingly, I just tested that in CLISP and I only get a warning, so I guess it only fails sometimes (since it's not like CLISP has gotten a new version recently)
2:40:15
mfiano
Kind of like (declare (type fixnum ...)) vs (declare (fixnum ...)) for simple/complex forms.
2:41:43
White_Flame
if LOOP demanded keywords for its ... keywords, then it would look like actual lambda args
2:42:20
aeth
I always use keywords for LOOP keywords because then they're syntax highlighted like keywords and stand out
2:42:26
White_Flame
although the ordering demands between the key/value pairs still extends what lambda args support
2:43:58
aeth
With very minimal changes (mostly just adding some extra parens) you could have basically LOOP, but with plists. e.g. (loop :for x :of-type fixnum :below 1000000000) vs. (do-loop (:for x :of-type fixnum :below 1000000000))
2:44:36
aeth
It'd probably be hard to implement, but easier than LOOP, since you could just do destructuring-bind with &key
2:44:50
mfiano
Probably also worth mentioning you can destructure types when using loop variable destructuring.
9:36:31
decent-username
hey I'm trying to run slime and I get the following error: https://paste.gnome.org/pt8dbzbnx