parenscript-devel

parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net

373 discussions

[parenscript-devel] NESTING-DEPTH crashes on improper lists
by sblist＠me.com 09 Nov '10

09 Nov '10

This causes compilations of forms like the following to fail: (ps (defun foo (a) (when a (destructuring-bind (b . c) bar (list b c))))) => TYPE-ERROR Backtrace: 0: (NESTING-DEPTH (B . C)) 1: (NESTING-DEPTH (DESTRUCTURING-BIND (B . C) BAR (LIST B C))) 2: (NESTING-DEPTH (PROGN (DESTRUCTURING-BIND (B . C) BAR (LIST B C)))) 3: (NESTING-DEPTH (IF A (PROGN (DESTRUCTURING-BIND (B . C) BAR (LIST B C)))))

2 1

[parenscript-devel] in-package and Parenscript compilation
by Alessio Stalla 06 Nov '10

06 Nov '10

Greetings, I'm approaching Parenscript and I must say I'm really impressed by this library. Kudos to the developers! But I find one thing missing: the Parenscript stream/file compiler does not understand in-package forms like the CL file compiler does; rather, it reads all the forms in the package which is current at the time it gets called. This makes it slightly inconvenient to compile Lisp files which need to be read in a certain package, and completely impossible to handle files which change *package* mid-file (which is generally not a good idea, but still it's possible in CL). I'm attaching a patch against src/compilation-interface.lisp to make the compiler behave like the CL one; comments are welcome. Regards, Alessio Stalla

3 2

[parenscript-devel] Missing 'break' in CASE
by sblist＠me.com 06 Nov '10

06 Nov '10

It appears that some commit between ac408014 and b9dc8d1a (maybe 2f9fa1976a?) breaks the compilation of CASE forms in a function's tail position when some (but not all) branches in a body form contain a RETURN. PS> (ps (defun foo () (case x ("bar" (if y (return t) nil)) ("baz" nil)))) "function foo() { switch (x) { case 'bar': if (y) { return true; }; //----------------- missing break; here case 'baz': return null; }; };" Scott

2 3

[parenscript-devel] Some notes on backward compatibility
by Vladimir Sedach 28 Oct '10

28 Oct '10

So there was a little bit of teh drama about Parenscript on Zach's blog today: http://xach.livejournal.com/274830.html?view=645006 I set the record straight, but as my reply makes a spiffy official Parenscript development policy that I hope everyone can agree with, I'm reposting it below: A general note about Parenscript: it's totally reasonable for new versions of Parenscript to implement ANSI CL functions and operators not implemented in previous versions. Another problem is that Parenscript started out with some non-ANSI features. By and large almost all of them turned out to be huge mistakes in practice, and are continually getting removed. Some of these can simply be put into the deprecated interface as macros - these will signal a warning at compile time advising how the deprecated functions/macros can be replaced with CL versions, but will still work. Some of these cannot be removed and will remain (for example, there is not really any way to express property access in ANSI Common Lisp, so that gets its own special form specific to Parenscript). However, one of these (symbol dot notation) turned out to be completely incompatible. Providing backwards compatibility for it would have meant replacing the entire CL reader for *any* code that generated Parenscript (even inline). As this feature made it impossible to implement things like proper scoping and was a continual source of bugs for PS code, I think removing it was the right choice. In conclusion, if you implement an ANSI CL function or special form that's not currently in Parenscript, be prepared that future versions of PS may re-implement it for you. You can preempt this surprise by contributing your code to Parenscript. Also, everyone is more than welcome to report bugs to the Parenscript mailing list: http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel Vladimir

1 0

[parenscript-devel] ps hates my labels
by Dmitri Pavlenkov 28 Oct '10

28 Oct '10

What's wrong with my labels? PS[19]> (ps (defun fac (n) (labels ((f (n a) (if (< n 2) a (f (- n 1) (* n a))))) (f n 1))) ) *** - The object to be destructured should be a list with 0 elements, not ((- N 1) (* N A)). The following restarts are available: ABORT :R1 Abort main loop Break 1 PS[20]>

3 3

[parenscript-devel] New Parenscript release: 2.2
by Vladimir Sedach 17 Oct '10

17 Oct '10

Hello, I've decided to make a new Parenscript release, 2.2. It includes mostly fixes. A couple of things have been deprecated. Implicit return should hopefully work better since last release. All reported unfixed bugs will go into the next release. Thinking about how to make expressionization work properly, and the latest bug reported by Scott, I realized that the way special forms work will need to change somewhat. Starting with 2.2, there will no longer be packaged releases for ASDF-Install (it's not any extra work making them, I just want to encourage people to use Quicklisp). Vladimir

1 0

[parenscript-devel] Parenscript condition system implemented for PSOS
by Red Daly 01 Oct '10

01 Oct '10

I have added a Common Lisp-like condition system to the Parenscript Object System (PSOS). Parenscript now has HANDLER-BIND, HANDLER-CASE, RESTART-CASE, RESTART-BIND, INVOKE-RESTART, and SIGNAL. The patch that adds this is here: http://github.com/gonzojive/paren-psos/commit/6578ad223515dc2c1ddf49346f4ba… and totals about 200 lines, plus 200 lines of test cases. It could probably work without a type system at all, but it will require some runtime code no matter what. The whole PSOS system is backed by a test suite that uses CL-Spidermonkey. Take a look at PSOS here: http://github.com/gonzojive/paren-psos for more details. Enjoy! Red

2 1

[parenscript-devel] How to generate comments?
by Bastian Müller 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

Hi, Sorry if this has been asked already earlier here on the list. I looked into the reference documentation, but couldn't find anything. Is it possible to generate JavaScript comments, or even more generalized, inline any JavaScript inside parenscript code? Thanks! Cheers, Bastian

3 7

[parenscript-devel] CONCAT-STRING
by Daniel Gackle 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

I was just looking at CONCAT-STRING in the file macros.lisp. This name is misleading, I think, since the arguments need not be strings. (They get converted to strings if necessary.) Perhaps CONCAT-TO-STRING or STRINGIFY? I prefer the latter for brevity.

2 2

[parenscript-devel] Tighter keyword arguments?
by Daniel Gackle 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

The code that's generated for a keyword argument goes like this: (ps (defun foo (&key a) (bar a))) => (abbreviated for clarity): "function foo() { var a; // ... pick out and assign keyword args ... if (a === undefined) { a = null; }; return bar(a); };" It seems to me that this could be made tighter as follows: "function foo() { var a = null; // ... pick out and assign keyword args ... return bar(a); };" The only difference I can think of is when someone explicitly passes undefined as a value for the argument, but that's an oxymoronic thing to do. Can anyone think of a reason not to make this change? I like PS's keyword arguments a lot, but the generated JS is bloated enough to make me wince.

4 9

← Newer
1
...
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
...
38
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

parenscript-devel