| > Not considering them to be Lisp is ridiculous. Calling them to be Lisp is wrong. > Not considering them to be Lisp is ridiculous. Picolisp is closer to Lisp 1.5 than CL is. How so? CL runs a lot Lisp 1.5 code unchanged. Picolisp not. The Picolisp evaluator is not compatible with Lisp 1.5. It doesn't even have LAMBDA. >CL took many ideas from Scheme, and vice versa. Sure not. The main idea CL took from Scheme was 'lexical binding by default'. Other than that the Scheme influence was minor. CL is based on Lisp Machine Lisp, NIL, S1 Lisp and Spice Lisp. All coming from Maclisp, which was developed out of Lisp 1.5. > The claim that CL is The One True Lisp is tenuous at best, and absurdly ridiculous at worst. I never said that. But it is the most widely used Lisp, and the one I mostly use - minus some minor use of Emacs Lisp. > It's good to know that splicing unquote optimizes for that case in Lisp. I wasn't sure, and so assumed the general case. You could have looked it up or tried it, before claiming it. I did it for you. > Yes, I know ir-macro does code traversal. Yes, sc-macros are more elegant. But that's the mechanism we picked, And I have no issue with it. Furthermore, it doesn't traverse all the same code twice. It traverses the inputs and the outputs. Yeah, but claiming that the CL code was less efficient. Great move. I looked that up from the Chicken Scheme sources, to actually see what it does. It traverses inputs and outputs during macro execution. You could have mentioned that. Sorry, I don't trust your judgements, your claims are simply not backed up by the source and how things actually work. > Says the CL user I can't remember seeing such ugly code for macro expansion in a CL implementation. Take make-er/ir-transformer . That function code is fully obfuscated. It bundles several utility functions, which don't belong there as sub-functions. Some are using access to lexical variables defined several dozen lines above, others don't. The result code is over hundred lines long, even though the basic mechanism could be written down much more compact. Each subfunction can only be understood by referring to the surrounding code, which is above or below.
Then it takes a parameter for using two different expansion mechanism. From that, two new closures are created, which then are given to the user in, again, two differently named versions. The code itself contains lots of debug code, which simply outputs intermediate results, and which will overwhelm any human user for any non-trivial macro expansion. |
However, it keeps a lot of ideas from 1.5 that were later dropped by CL and others. Names don't matter: ideas do.
>You could have looked it up or tried it, before claiming it. I did it for you.
It wasn't entirely relevant to the present situation, until I mentioned that I thought cons was more performant. Thanks for trying it. I don't have an excuse, but thanks.
>Yeah, but claiming that the CL code was less efficient. Great move.
I didn't. I said that splicing unquote had to traverse the resultant list, making it slower than cons, which was pretty much irrelevant in this case. I then explained the real reason I used cons.
>I looked that up from the Chicken Scheme sources, to actually see what it does. It traverses inputs and outputs during macro execution. You could have mentioned that.
Quite honestly, I didn't see how it was relevant. We weren't discussing macro system internals until just now. It's not great, but it gets the job done, and that wasn't the point.
I'm starting to get really really frustrated here. You seem to miss every point I make, to the point that I'm very nearly wondering if it's deliberate.