5 ms·

Plus, the whole ... style ... seems bizarre to me. Common Lisp isn't my usual dialect but I'd've expected something more like: (defun add-text-padding (st

by mst 6y ago

Plus, the whole ... style ... seems bizarre to me. Common Lisp isn't my usual dialect but I'd've expected something more like: (defun add-text-padding (str padding) (let ((lines (split-string "\n" str)) ( cond ((nil? lines) "") (#t (join-string "\n" (cons (car lines) (mapcar (lambda (x) (concat-string (repeat-string " " padding) x)) (cdr lines) ) ) )) ) ) Note: pseudocode typed straight into the comment box, and I dropped the newline feature, but hopefully a bit more illustrative of what I'd consider 'normal' lisp. (comments, criticisms and thrown fruit welcome)

dunefox 6y ago
(defun add-text-padding (str padding) (let ((lines (split-string "\n" str)) ( cond ((nil? lines) "") (#t (join-string "\n" (cons (car lines) (mapcar (lambda (x) (concat-string (repeat-string " " padding) x)) (cdr lines))))))) The closing brackets are supposed to be in one line, that much I know.
- mst 6y ago
  Yes, that's a more common way to format the code. I was trying to elucidate a different structure.
  - guenthert 6y ago
    But it makes it unnecessarily hard to read and distracts from what you meant to convey.
guenthert 6y ago
Well, you asked for it, so: the #t gives away that you're more comfortable with Scheme than with Lisp, I suppose those string functions are present in some Scheme dialect as well, but they sure aren't in Common Lisp (not with that syntax at least). Scheme is quite dogmatically a functional programming language, Common Lisp is decidedly a multi-paradigm language. With that it shouldn't surprise that the article's author chose to write into a string in an imperative programming style. I don't think it would raise eyebrows in the Common Lisp community. There's more than one way to do it.
- mst 6y ago
  The string functions were basically invented to allow me to express the algorithm, though a friend of mine who writes clojure looked at the original problem and produced an implementation that was logically similar to mine that used actual clojure functions that behave basically like that. I tend to do single assignment and minimal mutations in any language though, and try and push my side effects (I'm aware the string write is encapsulated therefore not a side effect) as far out to the edge as possible. As an example, in perl (which is probably my most-used language, so I'm 100% on board with "more than one way to do it" ;) I'd've written: sub add_text_padding ($str, $padlevel) { my ($first, @rest) = split /\n/, $str; my $pad = ' ' x $padlevel; join "\n", $first, map $pad.$_, @rest; } (my lisping has indeed been significantly in scheme, plus dabbling in other dialects and a tendency to prototype things in operative lisps derived from Shutt's kernel ... which is why I did, indeed, ask for it, so thank you for the reply)

by mst 6y ago

dunefox 6y ago

(defun add-text-padding (str padding) (let ((lines (split-string "\n" str)) ( cond ((nil? lines) "") (#t (join-string "\n" (cons (car lines) (mapcar (lambda (x) (concat-string (repeat-string " " padding) x)) (cdr lines))))))) The closing brackets are supposed to be in one line, that much I know.

mst 6y ago
Yes, that's a more common way to format the code. I was trying to elucidate a different structure.
- guenthert 6y ago
  But it makes it unnecessarily hard to read and distracts from what you meant to convey.

guenthert 6y ago

Well, you asked for it, so: the #t gives away that you're more comfortable with Scheme than with Lisp, I suppose those string functions are present in some Scheme dialect as well, but they sure aren't in Common Lisp (not with that syntax at least). Scheme is quite dogmatically a functional programming language, Common Lisp is decidedly a multi-paradigm language. With that it shouldn't surprise that the article's author chose to write into a string in an imperative programming style. I don't think it would raise eyebrows in the Common Lisp community. There's more than one way to do it.

mst 6y ago
The string functions were basically invented to allow me to express the algorithm, though a friend of mine who writes clojure looked at the original problem and produced an implementation that was logically similar to mine that used actual clojure functions that behave basically like that. I tend to do single assignment and minimal mutations in any language though, and try and push my side effects (I'm aware the string write is encapsulated therefore not a side effect) as far out to the edge as possible. As an example, in perl (which is probably my most-used language, so I'm 100% on board with "more than one way to do it" ;) I'd've written: sub add_text_padding ($str, $padlevel) { my ($first, @rest) = split /\n/, $str; my $pad = ' ' x $padlevel; join "\n", $first, map $pad.$_, @rest; } (my lisping has indeed been significantly in scheme, plus dabbling in other dialects and a tendency to prototype things in operative lisps derived from Shutt's kernel ... which is why I did, indeed, ask for it, so thank you for the reply)