LispForum

Tom wrote:Surely there's a lisper out there that can win this.

https://www.elance.com/j/lisp-website-a ... n/28604330

Tom

I don't see why not. Many of us have a talents.

You should probably read On Lisp, or ANSI Common Lisp. They (I'm guessing both of them) go over the function in detail. You could also try grepping the source of your favorite Common Lisp implementation for "defun member" to see a real-life example. But, it's good to figure these things ou...

I note that the word "hyphenated" didn't occur in that discussion.

I can't really think of any clever neologisms... maybe "choo-choo-case" because the hyphens make it look like a train.

Whatever inspires, please feel free to post here. I'm currently procrastinating on implementing a lot of stuff that already exists in SDL. I've already done lines, circles, and polygons, then I moved on to reinventing surface-copy. I want to ultimately create a set of macros (or a DSL as the case m...

But for a non-programmer like me, is there any reason I should start learning Common Lisp first, and then come to NewLisp, instead of starting from NewLisp right away? I have to admit that I know nothing at all about NewLisp, but I do know the resources that exist for Common Lisp: The books, On Lis...

I'm testing in GNU CLISP. I havent tried sbcl or others (yet) Without testing I have used incf and decf since I htough it would be a optimization. Today I benchmarked a little and found out incf performes 3 times slower than setf. For me this doesn't make any sense. Why do we have incf/decf if not ...

I also installed QL on Linux without any fiddling, but I've had the sb-bsd-sockets problem before. Not exactly sure how I fixed it, but you'll find sb-bsd-sockets in SBCL's /contrib directory. If updating and reinstalling doesn't work, installing sb-bsd-sockets is a reasonable plan B, I think.

gugamilare wrote:

Duke wrote:In SBCL, it actually does take a single extra operation to do (* a (* b c)) as compared to (* a b c).

That is not the case if the code is compiled.

This is off topic, but... when is the code ever not compiled in SBCL? Is there a circumstance where compiled-function-p returns nil?

I don't actually mean destructively replace, I mean lets say you pass the list (a b c d e), I want to return the list (8 8 8 8 8)... so basically I want a list returned with the same number of elements but instead of the original items, it'd be an item of my choosing. I am able to do this using the...

If (* 2 2 2) is somehow converted to (* (* 2 2) 2), then that extra step used in the conversion would mean that technically it would take slightly longer for the CPU to compute right? In SBCL, it actually does take a single extra operation to do (* a (* b c)) as compared to (* a b c). I'd assume CL...