< Unlike the JS form, a Parenscript macro definition does involve any
Javascript translation.  For a concise alternative to "defscriptmacro" I
think "defpsmacro" is more accurate.  defjsmacro seems incorrect since
you are defining something that operates purely at the Parenscript level. >

 

That's a good point. I agree.

 

< I might actually prefer a with-style macro for embedding Parenscript
code similar to "with-output-to-string" >

 

We wrote something like this and use it in our project. I'd be interested in the alternatives here.

 

Still, I like writing (js (blah)) for short expressions, especially in the REPL.

 

Dan

 

 

On 7/30/07, Red Daly <reddaly@stanford.edu> wrote:

Daniel Gackle wrote:
> I agree with renaming Parenscript's package from :js to :parenscript
> or :ps. Indeed, just :parenscript would be fine. A library and its
> package should usually have the same name. However, some of the
> function and macro names that Parenscript now complains are
> deprecated, I actually prefer to their replacements.
>
> For example, the js macro is accurately named. I prefer this:
>
>    (js (setf x 1))
>
> to this:
>
>   (ps (setf x 1))
>
> ...because "js" reminds me that I'm generating Javascript (not
> Parenscript). To me it's closer to the meaning. What I especially
> don't like, though, is this:
>
>   (script (setf x 1))
>
> ... because there are at least two other scripting languages embedded
> in my Lisp code, and the term "script" could apply to any of them. I
> need to know at all times which kind of script I'm working with. In
> this case it's Javascript.

SCRIPT: I used SCRIPT because if you consider the full symbol name,
PS:SCRIPT it should be obvious what type of script you are embedding.
In the context of the Parenscript package, "script" means Parenscript.

It seems difficult to communicate the meaning of the macro with a single
word.  Maybe JS, JS*, PS, and PS* are all bad.

I might actually prefer a with-style macro for embedding Parenscript
code similar to "with-output-to-string" or the "with-html-output" form
in CL-WHO:

(with-js-output (option*)
  parenscript-form*)
=> javascript result

>
> Similarly, I much prefer "defjsmacro" to "defscriptmacro". Much
> clearer and more expressive.
Unlike the JS form, a Parenscript macro definition does involve any
Javascript translation.  For a concise alternative to "defscriptmacro" I
think "defpsmacro" is more accurate.  defjsmacro seems incorrect since
you are defining something that operates purely at the Parenscript level.
>
> There's sort of a philosophical point here. I don't see Parenscript as
> a separate language. I see it as an interface to Javascript. I don't
> want an extra mental layer getting in the way, and I certainly don't
> want to forget that I'm writing Javascript. (I love using macros to
> build up abstractions in Parenscript - in fact that's a big reason I
> use PS - but to me that's a separate issue.)
> Bottom line, I have a moderate preference for "js" names instead of
> "ps" ones and a strong objection to the generic term "script". What do
> others think?
>
> Daniel

Red
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> parenscript-devel mailing list
> parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
>

_______________________________________________
parenscript-devel mailing list
parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel