Hi Clinton,
As I posted previously, I'm strongly opposed to the presence of dot syntax in Parenscript. If UCW really needs the dot syntax (I don't see any reason for that, but that's a UCW issue), you are better off writing a code-walker that would do the dot transformation on the symbols it encounters, rather than forking Parenscript.
Vladimir
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Clinton Ebadi clinton@unknownlamer.org wrote:
John Fremlin john@fremlin.org writes:
Hi Vladimir,
It seems that the new parenscript horribly breaks tpd2.
The awful part of the business is changing from using elements.push etc. methods.
You seem to recommend to rewrite them as ((slot-value elements 'push) new-thing).
This is completely not at all related to Common Lisp syntax, which was supposedly the aim of this change, so I guess I am barking up the wrong end of the stick.
Should I wait for the reader macros before making the update?
I've been tasked with re-adding the shorthand syntax to parenscript [0] in the symbol-syntax if you need these features. Right now it only does (.method ...) syntax, but sometime today or tomorrow I'll have (foo.bar.baz) expanding to ((slot-value foo 'bar) 'baz). I'm not sure whether it is worthwhile keeping foo[bar] syntax; (aref foo bar) is not particularly less convenient.
If upstream will not accept the changes this will be maintained as part of UCW again (probably renamed to avoid conflicts; since ps no longer uses the js package we'll move back there). I'll try to keep up with merges from upstream and whatnot as well.
[0] http://git.hcoop.net/?p=clinton/parenscript.git;a=summary
<captain_krunk> ntk is currently using "telnet fyodor 25" to send email
parenscript-devel mailing list parenscript-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel