4 ms·

I feel bad for people who haven't discovered ITERATE yet.

Jtsummers 1y ago
ITERATE still breaks when you use `count` inside it, the built-in CL function. If they ever address that problem I'll get back to use it but having a time bomb in my programs isn't something I like. Trivial example of breakage: (iter (for i from 1 to 10) (print (count i some-sequence)))
- shawn_w 1y ago
  Breaks how? I'm on my phone, not a computer right now and can't test, but that should call the CL function - ITERATE uses `counting` for that particular operation to avoid conflicts; see https://iterate.common-lisp.dev/doc/Gathering-Clauses.html https://iterate.common-lisp.dev/doc/Gathering-Clauses.html Or is the documentation wrong?
  - Jtsummers 1y ago
    Apparently this is a quicklisp problem, they haven't updated the release since 2021 when it was still broken.
    - shawn_w 1y ago
      I just grabbed the latest ITERATE source off of its gitlab repository, and, yeah, that bit is still giving an error: Iterate, in (COUNT I SOME-SEQUENCE): Missing value for SOME-SEQUENCE keyword as well as WARNING: COUNT appears to be used as an ITERATE clause keyword, in this sexpression: (COUNT I SOME-SEQUENCE). This use is now deprecated and will cease to be supported in a future version. Please use the alternative keyword COUNTING instead. If you intended COUNT to be interpreted as a function call, instead of an ITERATE clause, you must find an alternative way of calling it, at present, perhaps by using FUNCALL or APPLY. Have to use (iter (for i from 1 to 10) (print (funcall #'count i some-sequence))) Guess the documentation /is/ wrong (for now, until the code finishes catching up)
      - Jtsummers 1y ago
        Well, some-sequence was obviously an example, you'd have to fill it in with an actual sequence. Put in '(1 2 3) instead or assign something to it. But yeah, that's still not something I intend to use if they make you work around what should be plain Common Lisp.
        shawn_w 1y ago
        I had a some-sequence variable defined. (Using a literal list or vector gives a different error)
- BoingBoomTschak 1y ago
  It's been marked as deprecated for some time, but still needs manual removal as of now: https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/iterate/iterate/-/blob/master/iterate.lisp?ref_type=heads#L1055 https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/iterate/iterate/-/blob/master... (removing https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/iterate/iterate/-/blob/master/iterate.lisp?ref_type=heads#L2882 https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/iterate/iterate/-/blob/master... should work, I think). Still better than the loop abomination, IMO.
  - kazinator 1y ago
    I made a loop macro using the C preprocessor, for the Awk language. I had to rub my own eyes to believe that such a thing is possible. It comes with over twenty useful clauses. Clauses are programmer-definable. Clauses can combine in parallel or nested/cross-product iteration. https://www.kylheku.com/cgit/cppawk/about/ https://www.kylheku.com/cgit/cppawk/about/
Jach 1y ago
I'll never understand the love for iterate. Look at these comparisons: https://github.com/sabracrolleton/sabracrolleton.github.io/blob/master/iterate-loop.md https://github.com/sabracrolleton/sabracrolleton.github.io/b... For almost all of them, it's the same guy, just more parens. Nothing to love/hate for one or the other, it's just preference, though one is built-in.
- shawn_w 1y ago
  Looks more lispy because the parens. Plus it's extendable unlike LOOP, so you can make it work with your own data types. And a few other nice features like being able to collect into a vector or other sequence, not just lists.
- BoingBoomTschak 1y ago
  The big plus for me is that the ad-hoc if/when/do are removed in favour of the standard operators, without the horrible then/else/end/and dance. Then you got all the life-improving goodies (in-{sequence,string,file,stream}, index-of-*, previous, etc...) that really add up to something.

ITERATE still breaks when you use `count` inside it, the built-in CL function. If they ever address that problem I'll get back to use it but having a time bomb in my programs isn't something I like. Trivial example of breakage: (iter (for i from 1 to 10) (print (count i some-sequence)))

shawn_w 1y ago
Breaks how? I'm on my phone, not a computer right now and can't test, but that should call the CL function - ITERATE uses `counting` for that particular operation to avoid conflicts; see https://iterate.common-lisp.dev/doc/Gathering-Clauses.html https://iterate.common-lisp.dev/doc/Gathering-Clauses.html Or is the documentation wrong?
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  Apparently this is a quicklisp problem, they haven't updated the release since 2021 when it was still broken.
  - shawn_w 1y ago
    I just grabbed the latest ITERATE source off of its gitlab repository, and, yeah, that bit is still giving an error: Iterate, in (COUNT I SOME-SEQUENCE): Missing value for SOME-SEQUENCE keyword as well as WARNING: COUNT appears to be used as an ITERATE clause keyword, in this sexpression: (COUNT I SOME-SEQUENCE). This use is now deprecated and will cease to be supported in a future version. Please use the alternative keyword COUNTING instead. If you intended COUNT to be interpreted as a function call, instead of an ITERATE clause, you must find an alternative way of calling it, at present, perhaps by using FUNCALL or APPLY. Have to use (iter (for i from 1 to 10) (print (funcall #'count i some-sequence))) Guess the documentation /is/ wrong (for now, until the code finishes catching up)
    - Jtsummers 1y ago
      Well, some-sequence was obviously an example, you'd have to fill it in with an actual sequence. Put in '(1 2 3) instead or assign something to it. But yeah, that's still not something I intend to use if they make you work around what should be plain Common Lisp.
      - shawn_w 1y ago
        I had a some-sequence variable defined. (Using a literal list or vector gives a different error)
BoingBoomTschak 1y ago
It's been marked as deprecated for some time, but still needs manual removal as of now: https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/iterate/iterate/-/blob/master/iterate.lisp?ref_type=heads#L1055 https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/iterate/iterate/-/blob/master... (removing https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/iterate/iterate/-/blob/master/iterate.lisp?ref_type=heads#L2882 https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/iterate/iterate/-/blob/master... should work, I think). Still better than the loop abomination, IMO.
- kazinator 1y ago
  I made a loop macro using the C preprocessor, for the Awk language. I had to rub my own eyes to believe that such a thing is possible. It comes with over twenty useful clauses. Clauses are programmer-definable. Clauses can combine in parallel or nested/cross-product iteration. https://www.kylheku.com/cgit/cppawk/about/ https://www.kylheku.com/cgit/cppawk/about/

Jach 1y ago

I'll never understand the love for iterate. Look at these comparisons: https://github.com/sabracrolleton/sabracrolleton.github.io/blob/master/iterate-loop.md https://github.com/sabracrolleton/sabracrolleton.github.io/b... For almost all of them, it's the same guy, just more parens. Nothing to love/hate for one or the other, it's just preference, though one is built-in.

shawn_w 1y ago
Looks more lispy because the parens. Plus it's extendable unlike LOOP, so you can make it work with your own data types. And a few other nice features like being able to collect into a vector or other sequence, not just lists.
BoingBoomTschak 1y ago
The big plus for me is that the ad-hoc if/when/do are removed in favour of the standard operators, without the horrible then/else/end/and dance. Then you got all the life-improving goodies (in-{sequence,string,file,stream}, index-of-*, previous, etc...) that really add up to something.