dokyun

12 ms·

121.
by dokyun 2y ago
> The CLHS sez "Recursive expansion of the type specifier returned as the expansion must terminate, including the expansion of type specifiers which are nested within the expansion." though. As expected, here on SBCL, your type
122.
by dokyun 2y ago
> you can't type cons-based lists/trees (arguably THE Lisp data structure) because deftype can't be recursive and you can't create parametric types (deftype list-of (type) `(cons ,type (or null (list-of ,type)
123.
by dokyun 2y ago
Some Lisp compilers like SBCL are already capable of more extensive compile-time type-checking, but its information that the programmer is up to supply, and tends to be the part of the optimization stage rather than normal, incremental deve
124.
by dokyun 2y ago
> There’s no reason why an Emacs in Common Lisp wouldn’t still be able to jump to a definition, or to documentation, or whatever. It could still implement advice. Sorry if you were confused by my wording; SLIME is able to do all of this-
125.
by dokyun 2y ago
I think Emacs' process model is generic enough that it could adopt a better method of concurrency in the future. Functions for processes are run based on 'sentinels' which fire on interrupts from foreign processes. It's
126.
by dokyun 2y ago
I think you should clarify that the Lisp machines (at least the early ones that you speak of) were not 'multi-threaded' in the sense of multiprocessing--the only multiprocessing they did was running independent Lisp systems on eac
127.
by dokyun 2y ago
I am going to go out on a limb here and defend Elisp. I think that for what it was designed to be (a complete scripting language for a text editor) it does everything that it needs to do very well, and much more. Much of these arguments do
128.
by dokyun 2y ago
Elisp already has a (partial, but for most purposes complete) implementation of CLOS as part of the cl-lib package.