3 ms·

I appreciate that CL doesn’t have reader macros for those characters too: it allows me to do things like repurpose [] for objective-c method calls. https://git

I appreciate that CL doesn’t have reader macros for those characters too: it allows me to do things like repurpose [] for objective-c method calls. https://github.com/fiddlerwoaroof/objc-lisp-bridge https://github.com/fiddlerwoaroof/objc-lisp-bridge

axelrosen 8y ago
Well, Clojure doesn't have programmable reader macros either way. As long as you're not dead set on specific characters you could do: (defun extract-from-objc (obj) (objc-typecase obj (%@NSDate [[[[%@NSISO8601DateFormatter @(alloc)] @(init)] @(stringFromDate:.) :pointer obj] @(UTF8String)]s) (%@NSString [obj @(UTF8String)]s) (%@NSNumber (parse-number:parse-number (objc-runtime:.:extract-nsstring [obj @(stringValue)]))) (%@NSArray (map-nsarray #'extract-from-objc obj)) (%@NSDictionary (fw.lu:alist-string-hash-table (pairlis (map-nsarray #'extract-from-objc [obj @(allKeys)]) (map-nsarray #'extract-from-objc [obj @(allValues)])))) (t (or (funcall-some (cdr (objc-pick-by-type obj *objc-extractors*)) obj) obj)))) The reason I say they're good for DSLs is exactly for re-purposing to have a special meaning. Yes, nowhere close to being as powerful as reader macros. But the nice part is everyone can and knows how to work with these primitives. I do wish we had reader macros like CL, but I'd still totally want the built-in [] and {}.
- fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
  I really like how most of the non-sexp syntax is optional in CL. Anyways, I'm also a bit ambivalent about the merits of [] vs. #(): I like how the latter syntax is more "standard", since the # dispatching macro character is used for a bunch of things. E.g. multidimensional arrays #2a() #3a() complex numbers #c(1 2) character literals #\space, pathnames #p"/foo/bar" etc.: it adds to the uniformity of the syntax, ime.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
    Anyways, I guess I like CL's approach where #[] #{} [] and {} are all specified as reserved to the user and then, using named-readtables, you can pick an appropriate implementation as you see fit.

axelrosen 8y ago

Well, Clojure doesn't have programmable reader macros either way. As long as you're not dead set on specific characters you could do: (defun extract-from-objc (obj) (objc-typecase obj (%@NSDate [[[[%@NSISO8601DateFormatter @(alloc)] @(init)] @(stringFromDate:.) :pointer obj] @(UTF8String)]s) (%@NSString [obj @(UTF8String)]s) (%@NSNumber (parse-number:parse-number (objc-runtime:.:extract-nsstring [obj @(stringValue)]))) (%@NSArray (map-nsarray #'extract-from-objc obj)) (%@NSDictionary (fw.lu:alist-string-hash-table (pairlis (map-nsarray #'extract-from-objc [obj @(allKeys)]) (map-nsarray #'extract-from-objc [obj @(allValues)])))) (t (or (funcall-some (cdr (objc-pick-by-type obj *objc-extractors*)) obj) obj)))) The reason I say they're good for DSLs is exactly for re-purposing to have a special meaning. Yes, nowhere close to being as powerful as reader macros. But the nice part is everyone can and knows how to work with these primitives. I do wish we had reader macros like CL, but I'd still totally want the built-in [] and {}.

fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
I really like how most of the non-sexp syntax is optional in CL. Anyways, I'm also a bit ambivalent about the merits of [] vs. #(): I like how the latter syntax is more "standard", since the # dispatching macro character is used for a bunch of things. E.g. multidimensional arrays #2a() #3a() complex numbers #c(1 2) character literals #\space, pathnames #p"/foo/bar" etc.: it adds to the uniformity of the syntax, ime.
- fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
  Anyways, I guess I like CL's approach where #[] #{} [] and {} are all specified as reserved to the user and then, using named-readtables, you can pick an appropriate implementation as you see fit.