#commonlisp
12 posts · Last used 10d
@screwlisp@gamerplus.org @ramin_hal9001@fe.disroot.org "The great thing about #Lisp is that it has extremely simple syntax"
... except, of course, for #CommonLisp which is a complete baroque mess.
Of course, it's largely a complete baroque mess because reader macros, and reader macros are useful shorthand, but #$(words)? Really?
And noted also that #Clojure has its own baroquery hard-coded into its reader (#{:a :b [:c @D@mastodon.scot]}, anyone?), which is arguably worse, but...
This might as well be #Perl.
«except, of course, for #CommonLisp which is a complete baroque mess.»
This is a big exaggeration.
«#$(words)»
This is not standard Common Lisp.
@simon_brooke@mastodon.scot @screwlisp@gamerplus.org @ramin_hal9001@fe.disroot.org @D@mastodon.scot
On the subject of `common-lisp:loop’, I offer an exercise at the intermediate level (or maybe a little more than intermediate).
How would you implement a `for’ subclause extending the loop facility with a way to step through a sequence (of the generic kind, i.e. a single subclause that works for both lists and vectors)? Would adding such a subclause be a good idea or not, and why?