August 1998 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

Re: [Success+Problem] "Finnish Landrace" `sparc-sun-solaris2.6' 27 years, 1 month

Jareth Hein

>>>>> "CW" == Christoph Wedler <wedler(a)fmi.uni-passau.de> writes: CW> Building was fine. Having the toolbar on the left side is still a CW> problem (frame resizing, workaround in XEmacs-20.4 doesn't work CW> with XEmacs-21.0). The placement should be probably be able to CW> set with ~/.Xresources. CW> Sometimes (well, I guess if all 256 colors are used), I get some CW> strange lines in my shell where I've invoked XEmacs from: CW> allocate_nearest_color returned 0!!! CW> Warning: Cannot allocate colormap entry for "Maroon" CW> allocate_nearest_color returned 0!!! Warning: Cannot allocate CW> colormap entry for "ForestGreen" allocate_nearest_color CW> returned 0!!! CW> Is this intended? I remember having seen this once in b47, too. This is indicative of something that isn't supposed to be able to happen. I'll look again at the code in question, but I thought I was pretty thourough last time... :-( Could you perhaps send me the output of 'xdpyinfo' so I can get a little info on your X server? Thanx. -- Jareth Hein | jareth(a)camelot.co.jp | ハインジェラス Toolsmith & Program lead | http://www.camelot.co.jp | 開発部チーフ Camelot Software, Ltd. | |（株）キャメロット "It's a sad sign of the times when 'political machine' is redefined to include 'main-line battle tank'" - Ambassador Grossblunder

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Macros: Scheme vs Common Lisp 27 years, 1 month

Michael Sperber

>>>>> "Holger" == Holger Schauer <schauer(a)coling.uni-freiburg.de> writes: >>>>> "MS" == Michael Sperber schrieb am 26 Aug 1998 09:53:12 +0200: MS> Another problem with this approach is that it breaks in the MS> following case: MS> (setq bar 23) MS> (defmacro foo () bar) MS> (defun baz () (foo)) MS> (baz) => 23 Holger> MS (setq bar 42) MS> (baz) => [still ...] 23 MS> This makes obvious that the macro dereferences the binding too MS> early. (Namely, at expansion time.) Holger> Time seems to getting near to issue a bug-report to Bruno Haible[1] Holger> ... (again the following is from ACL4.3): Can you explain to me why the above should lead to a different result? CLISP's output is exactly what I expected it to be: (setq bar 23) (defmacro foo () bar) ; this means (foo) expands to the value of BAR (defun baz () (foo)) ; this therefore expands to (defun baz () 23) (baz) => 23 ; indeed (setq baz 42) ; the definition of FOO is unchanged (foo) => 23 ; presto I have to admit, though, that this thread is furthering my conviction that using CL macros right is something fairly difficult :-) -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Macros: Scheme vs Common Lisp 27 years, 1 month

Clemens Heitzinger

Rick Campbell <campbell(a)cyberpass.net> writes: > loop-finish is usually defined with macrolet and "pollutes" the name > space (i.e. makes it non-hygienic), which is useful in this case. > > Certainly, many people find the extended loop useful, but it's got to > be one of the ugliest, non-lispy parts of CL. I can't really see > trying to build an argument for much of anything around the fact that > the extended/MIT version of loop uses it. But the syntax of loop doesn't have anything to do with the use of loop-finish. I don't want to comment on the syntax of loop. Come on, you wanted an *example*, here it is. ;-) > Many people find goto useful . . . . What do you want to imply with that? How do you want to do tail recursion optimization without goto? ;-) Yours, -- Clemens Heitzinger Student der Techn. Mathematik, Technische Universität Wien, Österreich Vienna University of Technology, Austria

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Macros: Scheme vs Common Lisp 27 years, 1 month

Holger Schauer

>>>>"MS" == Michael Sperber schrieb am 26 Aug 1998 09:53:12 +0200: MS> Another problem with this approach is that it breaks in the MS> following case: MS> (setq bar 23) MS> (defmacro foo () bar) MS> (defun baz () (foo)) MS> (baz) => 23 MS (setq bar 42) MS> (baz) => [still ...] 23 MS> This makes obvious that the macro dereferences the binding too MS> early. (Namely, at expansion time.) Time seems to getting near to issue a bug-report to Bruno Haible[1] ... (again the following is from ACL4.3): USER(8): (setq bar 23) 23 USER(9): (defmacro foo () bar) FOO USER(10): (defun baz () (foo)) BAZ USER(11): (baz) 23 USER(12): (setq bar 42) 42 USER(13): (baz) 42 No surprise here: (foo) => 42 ! USER(20): (setq bar 23) 23 USER(21): (let ((bar 42)) (baz)) 23 USER(22): (setq bar 57) 57 USER(23): (let ((bar 42)) (baz)) 57 USER(24): (foo) 57 Footnotes: [1] .. but of course, we would have to check the HyperSpec at least to see if ACLs behaviour is correct (required by the ANSI definition that is). Holger PS: I begin to see the problems that you have with CL-macros. That won't make me switch to Scheme, however. I have lived up to avoid these problems. -- --- http://www.coling.uni-freiburg.de/~schauer --- ">grep schauer passwd >schauer:x:1075:1075:Holger Schauer, 2790:/home/schauer:/usr/bin/xemacs" "Das ist nur eine Shell. Bedenklich waere, wenn Dein LILO /vmunix.el bootet." -- Kristian und Holger in de.comp.os.linux.misc

1 participants
0 comments

Re: w3 on native-build mswindows 27 years, 1 month

Hrvoje Niksic

wmperry(a)aventail.com (William M. Perry) writes: > I would say that the file munging routines under win32 should NOT change > the path separators. Can you explain this request in some detail? Why should the file munging routines leave the separators alone? -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- main(){printf(&unix["\021%six\012\0"],(unix)["have"]+"fun"-0x60);}

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Company sued over comments in code 27 years, 1 month

SL Baur

Daniel Berlin <dberlin(a)email.msn.com> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: > Haha. > Regular people win either way. > A federal court very recently ruled that source code is not speech, and thus > not protected by the first amendment, and used this as the basis as to why > source code for encryption can be controlled as a munition. > If this person wins their case, that means that source code is speech, and > thus protected, and thus encryption export controls are illegal. > If this person loses their case, it means i can continue to name my > variables "My_ex_girlfriend_stacy_is_a_ho" or whatever. This logic is suspect. You're either not American and/or not following American news. The likeliest conclusion is that the lawsuit will stand *and* crypto will continue to be restricted. The collective IQ of the powers that be in the United States is room temperature ... in Celsius.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Company sued over comments in code 27 years, 1 month

SL Baur

Pete Ware <ware(a)cis.ohio-state.edu> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: > Actually, ignoring that I'm just a bleeding heart liberal, as a > programmer I find the code really offensive. It doesn't sound as if it's any different than similar code (and commentary) in XEmacs. I've gone as far (probably too far) as I'm going to go in that area. If you're offended by comments in source code and wouldn't want to run a program with such source code, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I'm afraid of getting sued, but not that afraid. This is not a contradiction with my stance on Stallman flames in the source. Comments or code containing flames directed at any individual in particular will and should be rejected. It isn't fair, in any sense of the word. If you're thin-skinned or a juvenile[1] then you don't belong on the Internet IMO. Footnotes: [1] Specifically meaning the definition #2: >From WordNet (r) 1.6 (wn) juvenile adj 1: of or relating to or characteristic of or appropriate for children; "juvenile diabetes"; "juvenile fashions" 2: displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity; "adolescent insecurity"; "jejune responses to our problems"; "their behavior was juvenile"; "puerile jokes" [syn: {adolescent}, {jejune}, {puerile}] n : a youthful person [syn: {juvenile person}] [ant: {adult}]

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Company sued over comments in code 27 years, 1 month

Hrvoje Niksic

Pete Ware <ware(a)cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: > With any luck, the company will be bankrupted by the lawsuit. Of > course, judging by the meaningful variable names (watermellon?) Hack, XEmacs has variables named `ivan' and `run_the_gcc_developers_over_with_a_steamroller', and it's been in "business" for quite some time. Who knows what part of code or temporary variable she could have picked? > and the fact that they don't even know who wrote the code (great bug > tracking and regression testing going on there -- not) It may be that they know perfectly well who wrote the code, but are trying to protect the poor fools who wrote the comments. "Shame and anger"... "painful discovery"... "mortified"... Give me a break! :-( She must have been jumping with joy for the new opportunity to gain more than the minimum wages (10,000,000 dollars). -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- A jury consists of 12 persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.

2 participants
1 comments

Re: Macros: Scheme vs Common Lisp 27 years, 1 month

Michael Sperber

>>>>> "Holger" == Holger Schauer <schauer(a)coling.uni-freiburg.de> writes: >>>>> "MS" == Michael Sperber schrieb am 24 Aug 1998 11:14:43 +0200: MS> Your example evaluates BAR at macro-definition time which surely MS> is not what you intended. (I.e., (foo) expands to 23, MS> regardless.) What I want is: MS> (setq 23) MS> (defmacro foo () 'bar) MS> (foo) => 23 MS> (let ((bar 42)) (foo)) => 23 [note: CL actually yields 42] MS> (setq bar 57) MS> (foo) => 57 MS> (let ((bar 42)) (foo)) => 57 [note: CL actually yields 42] Holger> But exactly this behaviour is what you get when you use Holger> (defmacro foo () bar) instead of (defmacro foo () 'bar): Holger> USER(2): (setq bar 23) Holger> 23 Holger> USER(9): (defmacro foo () bar) Holger> FOO Holger> USER(10): (foo) Holger> 23 Holger> USER(11): (let ((bar 42)) (foo)) Holger> 23 Holger> USER(12): (setq bar 57) Holger> 57 Holger> USER(13): (let ((bar 42)) (foo)) Holger> 57 Holger> USER(14): Another problem with this approach is that it breaks in the following case: (setq bar 23) (defmacro foo () bar) (defun baz () (foo)) (baz) => 23 (setq bar 42) (baz) => [still ...] 23 This makes obvious that the macro dereferences the binding too early. (Namely, at expansion time.) -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Macros: Scheme vs Common Lisp 27 years, 1 month

Michael Sperber

>>>>> "Clemens" == Clemens Heitzinger <cheitzin(a)rainbow.studorg.tuwien.ac.at> writes: Clemens> sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes: >> >>>>> "Clemens" == Clemens Heitzinger <cheitzin(a)rainbow.studorg.tuwien.ac.at> writes: >> Clemens> sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes: >> >> >> As I explained, in CL you only have the non-hygienic option. You can >> >> hack around it, but it's still not going to do the right thing in all >> >> cases. >> Clemens> Can you give an example where with-hygienic-variables fails? >> >> Read the postings between Holger Schauer and myself on this very thread. Clemens> Source code, please. What's your question? We're exchanging hardly anything *but* source code. -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

1 participants
0 comments

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

XEmacs-Beta August 1998