iterate-devel January 2006

iterate-devel@common-lisp.net

9 participants
24 discussions

Re: [iterate-devel] Fwd: if-first-iteration, a little better vers ion as an arch patch
by Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril 08 Feb '06

08 Feb '06

Hi, >> The user API looks ok, however the way you change >add-binding removes safety checks: several uses must have the >same default initialization and type, etc. This could cause >future extensions to break. >I don't really see what you mean here (newbie warning repeated :) > >I modified add-binding to accept an optional keyword param, Add-binding was previously used only via make-binding-internal. Your patch bypasses all the checks that the make-* functions do, and the functionality they provide. Is that clearer? >Maybe a make-shared-binding is what's missing? Indeed something seems missing, e.g. "create only if not existing already, but I don't know the name of the possibly existing binding". >- attila >(alias 101 on irc &no 'its not lisp code :) I was introduced to IRC in the late eighties but never felt comfortable with it: Too many concurrent discussions, despite threading GUI clients, and lots of bots & kicking. I very much prefer usenet news. Regards, Jörg Höhle.

2 2

[iterate-devel] Auto-nag: iterate link verifier failed
by root＠common-lisp.net 30 Jan '06

30 Jan '06

You are being nagged on because your project's name showed up in the nightly Checkbot run. Checkbot checks for broken links etc. This probably means that you are either pointing to a broken link or that someone is pointing to a broken link on your site. Or something else, it check's a bunch of stuff. Update your webpages or you shall be nagged again next week. To find out what's wrong with your webpages, please consult: http://common-lisp.net/checkbot/checkbot-common-lisp.net.html Any questions? You got this email but your webpage doesn't seem to be listed on the checkbot webpage? You can reach the author of this cronjob at clo-devel(a)common-lisp.net Thanks!

2 1

Re: [iterate-devel] Fwd: if-first-iteration, a little better vers ion as an arch patch
by Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril 29 Jan '06

29 Jan '06

Hi, Attila Lendvai wrote: [sorry to get back that late at you] >i've implemented another version of first-iteration-p and first-time-p >as discussed. please find a patch attached with some tests, it's >relative to the 1.4 release. The user API looks ok, however the way you change add-binding removes safety checks: several uses must have the same default initialization and type, etc. This could cause future extensions to break. I think the make-xyz-binding API should be used, that's what they are for, and they also provide for the optional type declarations. I agree the many make-*-binding are confusing. It's also confusing me every time! You once wrote you had a bad feeling about (setf (cddr entry) ...). But it is the "API" for adding extra information to bindings: "The alist entry is returned. It can be used to store additional info ..." < (locally (declare (optimize safety ... > (locally (declare (optimize (safety 3)... While I can indeed remember a bad declaration (revealed by sbcl/cmucl) somewhere in the testsuite fixed on 2005-05-20, the above change is not necessary. SAFETY just means (SAFETY 3). It's been there since CLtL1. See CLHS about OPTIMIZE. Which Lisp caused you to change all these declarations? Did it generate an error? Please report a conformance error to the implementor. The error I fixed on 2005-05-20 was an incorrect (declare (safety) ...) instead of (declare (optimize safety ...)). Regards, Jörg Höhle.

2 1

Re: [iterate-devel] Project status
by Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Attila Lendvai wrote: >actually what i am missing is only >a publically accessible repository preferrably with two branches, a >dev and a release branch. Well, in my view, Iterate is a fairly mature package. It's also close to a dead-end (by which I mean sort of an evolutionary stabilization). Therefore, it's not surprising that there's not much activity. People don't invent useful new Iteration forms every other day. So in my eyes, a single branch is fine. A devel branch would mean that there are actually several people with developer status, who share the distributed repository to exchange code before it's proven stable and released. With Iterate, I think there's no need for this, yet. As long as you can be confident that things will eventually become merged somehow by the maintainer. ;) The latter is a difference with CL-SDL. It's on sourceforge, there have been bug-reports (e.g. duplicate CD-status) but I've seen no response at all in the mailing list. A devel branch might come in handy should I do major modifications to the internal structure, with a slight change of semantics (e.g. move lots of initialization from SETQ to the binding LET), which might affect some users. That would require a branch, so that some bug fixes can still be applied to the stable release. But don't hold your breath for this to happen anytime soon. This notwithstanding, several developers/maintainers, some actually with write access to common-lisp.net could help things speed up... Regards, Jörg Höhle.

1 0

Re: [iterate-devel] Project status
by Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Hi, Attila Lendvai wrote: >Seems like iterate is a little bit frozen, just like many other lisp >projects (newbie impression). Actually, it's not. At least in my eyes. I'd say there's a distributed maintenance problem. I've been maintaining the Iterate code and documentation for the last year, but I don't have write access to common-lisp.net. So far, Marco has kindly maintained the website, putting the .lisp online. I sent him updates once a while, but somehow, some updates got lost, or my archives where somehow unreadable or whatever happened, nobody knows. It's true that the webpages have not been modified for ages. They are out of date. It's true that I've too little time for the many things I'd like to do. >Background: I've accidentally sent a patch for yaclml that used >first-iteration-p. Oops, that's too early, but not a great problem in practice. In a couple of years, nobody will remember that. I'm serious :) I'm sorry time prevented me from sending you feedback for the last patch. I'll do so asap. BTW, you're welcome to dig further into the Iterate codebase. >So if there's anything I can help with feel free to delegate >some todo's... Updating the webpages comes into mind, and snippets of TeX documentation for the clauses you wish added (just write ASCII in the style of the iterate manual, I can TeXify the text). Regards, Jörg Höhle.

2 1

[iterate-devel] Project status
by Attila Lendvai 23 Jan '06

23 Jan '06

hi Seems like iterate is a little bit frozen, just like many other lisp projects (newbie impression). I can't volunteer to help with the code maintenance yet, I need some more time with lisp for that. But I can help mailing people for account requests, to convert the repository to darcs if agreed, etc... Background: I've accidentally sent a patch for yaclml that used first-iteration-p. So if there's anything I can help with feel free to delegate some todo's... - attila (alias 101 on irc &no 'its not lisp code :)

1 0

[iterate-devel] Auto-nag: iterate link verifier failed
by root＠common-lisp.net 23 Jan '06

23 Jan '06

You are being nagged on because your project's name showed up in the nightly Checkbot run. Checkbot checks for broken links etc. This probably means that you are either pointing to a broken link or that someone is pointing to a broken link on your site. Or something else, it check's a bunch of stuff. Update your webpages or you shall be nagged again next week. To find out what's wrong with your webpages, please consult: http://common-lisp.net/checkbot/checkbot-common-lisp.net.html Any questions? You can reach the author of this cronjob at clo-devel(a)common-lisp.net Thanks!

1 0

[iterate-devel] Auto-nag: iterate link verifier failed
by root＠common-lisp.net 18 Jan '06

18 Jan '06

You are being nagged on because your project's name showed up in the nightly Checkbot run. Checkbot checks for broken links etc. This probably means that you are either pointing to a broken link or that someone is pointing to a broken link on your site. Or something else, it check's a bunch of stuff. Update your webpages or you shall be nagged again next week. To find out what's wrong with your webpages, please consult: http://common-lisp.net/checkbot/checkbot-common-lisp.net.html Any questions? You can reach the author of this cronjob at admin(a)common-lisp.net Thanks!

1 0

Re: [iterate-devel] Fwd: if-first-iteration, a little better vers ion as an arch patch
by Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril 18 Jan '06

18 Jan '06

Peter Van Eynde wrote: >> am i right when i assume there's no source control for iterate >> currently and the arch/tla source tree (at >> iterate-devel(a)common-lisp.net--2004/iterate--main--1.4) >This seem to be the case, this and the lack of a version bump in the >'newest' tar.gz's asd file makes life difficult for this debian >maintainer. Hm, I'm not sure I understand. You seem to miss two things: o one is some update at common-lisp.net, in the main-1.4 branch. I can't help with that, only people with write access can. o the other is some means to see whether there's something new in the .tgz which I send out? That I can answer. + I didn't feel like changing (defconst version "1.4" "Current version of Iterate") into "1.4.x" for every patch that I send. I fount it ok to have only major.minor, not x.y.z. And what I sent out last year are mostly bugfixes, so there wasn't a need to update minor. Anyway, my idea about how things work is that whoever puts my stuff into Arch(a)common-lisp.net will automatically cause a new Arch number to be generated, so my own numbering schemes are moot anyway. I thought I understood that only what is in common-lisp.net HEAD counts for the Debian source (and thus Peter), so my RCS numbering is of no interest to others. What would you like to have + change (defconst version to "1.4.23"), in sync with my own internal RCS numbers? + change it according to some other numbering, i.e. e.g. "1.4.5" when it's the fifth time I send out the archive publicly? + not change this Lisp variable, until I really change the API or functionality? + name the .tgz archives differently than e.g. iterate-jch.tgz? + none of the above, you were not talking about that at all. Would you please clarify? Jörg Höhle.

2 1

Re: [iterate-devel] Fwd: if-first-iteration, a little better vers ion as an arch patch
by Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril 13 Jan '06

13 Jan '06

Attila Lendvai writes: >this entire stuff is probably a few minutes for you probably :) Never. I'm used to double check the code, double-check the macro output (with and without multiple uses etc.). And I did not mention the need to add testcases, nor update the TeX documentation... Nor use of RCS/darcs/you-name-it. OTOH, answering e-mails always seems to take little time and little care :-) >I think a first-iteration-p would be more useful then an entire if-... >construct. Same for first-time-p Indeed. You're completely right. Thanks for opening my eyes! A single predicate integrates even better with the rest of CL (which is one of Iterate's points over LOOP) than another custom IF*. > >> BTW, what's the iteration pattern that lead you to ... Some other question comes to mind: does the need justify a new construct, or are the present ones "good enough"? I.e. if-first-iteration (non-sharing) could also be done using (for first-iteration initially t then nil) Of course, that would not share variables, but in DSL terms, it looks like a growth of non-orthogonal features, with slight variations between each (e.g. yours shares variables, if-first-time allows non-top-level use, if initially then is not as efficient (who cares?) etc.) > (finally (return `(progn ,@it))) Why not just `(progn .,(iter #)) ; read . , if you prefer -- it's not ,. or `(progn ,@(iter #)) since the "final" clause it never conditional? Regards, Jörg Höhle.

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

iterate-devel January 2006