Comments on: Lisp, documenting my encounter with, step #2 http://ave1.org/2019/lisp-documenting-my-encounter-with-step-2/ Tue, 06 Oct 2020 17:02:31 +0000 http://polimedia.us hourly 1 By: TMSR work: plan for 2019 M8 « The Tar Pit http://ave1.org/2019/lisp-documenting-my-encounter-with-step-2/#comment-375 TMSR work: plan for 2019 M8 « The Tar Pit Thu, 10 Oct 2019 11:32:30 +0000 http://ave1.org/?p=261#comment-375 [...] remarks the lack of Common Lisp learning material. Jurov recommends CLTL2, while Stan mentions one of [...] [...] remarks the lack of Common Lisp learning material. Jurov recommends CLTL2, while Stan mentions one of [...]

]]> By: lispm http://ave1.org/2019/lisp-documenting-my-encounter-with-step-2/#comment-262 lispm Thu, 08 Aug 2019 16:44:03 +0000 http://ave1.org/?p=261#comment-262 A slightly more beginner friendly book was 'Common Lisp, the language', here the second edition : PROGN is here: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/cltl/clm/node82.html That book was written as the language description, before (CLtL1) and during (CLtL2) the ANSI CL specification work... A slightly more beginner friendly book was 'Common Lisp, the language', here the second edition : PROGN is here: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/cltl/clm/node82.html

That book was written as the language description, before (CLtL1) and during (CLtL2) the ANSI CL specification work...

]]> By: Stanislav Datskovskiy http://ave1.org/2019/lisp-documenting-my-encounter-with-step-2/#comment-244 Stanislav Datskovskiy Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:24:25 +0000 http://ave1.org/?p=261#comment-244 ave1: FWIW I originally learned from Graham's 1994 "red" book ("ANSI Common Lisp"). Found his "On Lisp" to be largely useless, esp. for beginners -- consists mostly of circus tricks. ave1: FWIW I originally learned from Graham's 1994 "red" book ("ANSI Common Lisp"). Found his "On Lisp" to be largely useless, esp. for beginners -- consists mostly of circus tricks.

]]> By: spyked http://ave1.org/2019/lisp-documenting-my-encounter-with-step-2/#comment-242 spyked Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:06:29 +0000 http://ave1.org/?p=261#comment-242 IMO the absence of proper Lisp learning material is infuriating. I'm going to have to dig some text myself and review it. IMO the absence of proper Lisp learning material is infuriating. I'm going to have to dig some text myself and review it.

]]> By: ave1 http://ave1.org/2019/lisp-documenting-my-encounter-with-step-2/#comment-238 ave1 Tue, 30 Jul 2019 04:47:05 +0000 http://ave1.org/?p=261#comment-238 Stan, I did not have a problem with the name. Although, now that I read your comment, how does Nth mean Last? I also see how I can use and would need this 'progn'. And now that you mention prog1, I'll look into that one and prog2. I tried to learn lisp by reading books first, i.e. the gigamonkeys one (Could not get trough it, too stupid), "on lisp" (Very bad writing), "... small pieces" (Hmm). I hoped the spec would be just that, a spec. Stan, I did not have a problem with the name. Although, now that I read your comment, how does Nth mean Last?

I also see how I can use and would need this 'progn'. And now that you mention prog1, I'll look into that one and prog2.

I tried to learn lisp by reading books first, i.e. the gigamonkeys one (Could not get trough it, too stupid), "on lisp" (Very bad writing), "... small pieces" (Hmm). I hoped the spec would be just that, a spec.

]]> By: Stanislav Datskovskiy http://ave1.org/2019/lisp-documenting-my-encounter-with-step-2/#comment-237 Stanislav Datskovskiy Mon, 29 Jul 2019 20:35:49 +0000 http://ave1.org/?p=261#comment-237 The name always seemed self-descriptive to me: "progn" programmatically (sequentially) executes a series of statements and returns the evaluation of the Nth (vs. e.g. prog1, where -- the 1st). There are many confusable/redundant moving parts in Common Lisp, but I never found this one to be one of them. The name always seemed self-descriptive to me: "progn" programmatically (sequentially) executes a series of statements and returns the evaluation of the Nth (vs. e.g. prog1, where -- the 1st).

There are many confusable/redundant moving parts in Common Lisp, but I never found this one to be one of them.

]]>