If you're doing this because you want to return multiple values (that being a common use case for pass-by-reference in C++), try (values) instead.LispProgrammer wrote:How can I make it so that so that the value of y is changed to 6???
Search found 10 matches
- Thu Dec 18, 2008 7:22 am
- Forum: Common Lisp
- Topic: changing argument variables
- Replies: 10
- Views: 20898
Re: changing argument variables
- Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:31 am
- Forum: Common Lisp
- Topic: Lisp and Regex
- Replies: 7
- Views: 14984
Re: Lisp and Regex
you can use cl-ppcre, a portable regexp library for lisp: http://www.weitz.de/cl-ppcre/ It probably won't matter for this usage, but it's important to note that PCRE stands for Perl-Compatible Regular Expression, and Perl's regular expressions are not regular expressions in the formal sense. This m...
- Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:42 am
- Forum: Common Lisp
- Topic: How can I rewrite the function APPLY without using APPLY?
- Replies: 12
- Views: 26790
Re: How can I rewrite the function APPLY without using APPLY?
No. There's nothing that says that builtins have to be special forms. Being a special form just means it doesn't use the default evaluation rule.smithzv wrote:If it is not a special operator, doesn't that mean that it should be representable in terms of special operators?
- Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 am
- Forum: The Lounge
- Topic: What feature would you most like to see in Lisp?
- Replies: 43
- Views: 74150
Re: What feature would you most like to see in Lisp?
Certainly not a pipe-dream. You need a C header parser like cparse (http://common-lisp.net/project/cparse/), and the FFI ofcourse. From there you should be able to do something like (printf ...). Another approach might to load a DSO and look for C++ functions; with C++ name mangling, you could prob...
- Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:47 am
- Forum: Common Lisp
- Topic: The Future of Lisp
- Replies: 25
- Views: 43954
Re: The Future of Lisp
Intel has already shown 80-core test chips, albeit not with full x86 cores. But I have had personal discussions with Intel architects that say that tens of cores is certainly right around the corner. You don't need personal discussions for that: Larrabee is tentatively expected to have 24 x86-64 co...
- Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:38 am
- Forum: Common Lisp
- Topic: with-open-file problem of sbcl
- Replies: 12
- Views: 23977
Re: with-open-file problem of sbcl
A simpler test case:
This hangs for me, which shows that the bug isn't tied specifically to (with-open-file) or (read).
Code: Select all
(let
((f (open #P"/sys/class/net/eth0/statistics/rx_bytes" :direction :input)))
(read-char f))
- Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:43 am
- Forum: Common Lisp
- Topic: Multi-core utilization in SBCL
- Replies: 7
- Views: 15873
Re: Multi-core utilization in SBCL
I don't know SBCL threading specifically, but here's some sorts of things that you could run into in any threading environment: Your task may be I/O-bound instead of CPU-bound (that is, it spends most of its time waiting for, say, disk access). You may have too-large locks, which wind up serializing...
- Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:41 am
- Forum: Common Lisp
- Topic: Best program to use lisp on?
- Replies: 17
- Views: 43304
Re: Best program to use lisp on?
Or, for a more functional approach, there's:
Code: Select all
(defun price-order-total (item-list)
(apply #'+ (mapcar #'third item-list)))
- Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:57 am
- Forum: Common Lisp
- Topic: Does Common Lisp need a better type system?
- Replies: 14
- Views: 38366
Re: Does Common Lisp need a better type system?
Whenever I read anything about type systems on Lambda the Ultimate or other more theoretically-oriented sites, my eyes just glaze over and and I start drooling. Well, yeah. That's because LtU people are off in the future, working on type systems that have powerful capabilities, but haven't yet been...
- Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:43 am
- Forum: Common Lisp
- Topic: Programming Style & (eval ...)
- Replies: 17
- Views: 42395
Re: Programming Style & (eval ...)
And quite possibly on 64 bit systems this would be even higher Yes: it's 1152921504606846975 (still in SBCL). That's (2^60)-1, a little over 1 quintillion. I suppose a 64-bit machine could have enough memory to have that many arguments...but not this year. (Let's see, assume each argument takes one...