<dnhester26>
I tried using clouseau a while back and couldn't get it to run per the instructions. I didn't really tinker with it because of lack of time. Having read now the past few day's discussions, is it because I'm on a mac and clouseau is a McCLIM application?
<beach>
Could be. There is nothing special about running Clouseau. You just do (CLOUSEAU:INSPECT <some-object>)
triffid has joined #commonlisp
<gilberth>
A mac isn't any special, it's a UNIX after all. However, you need to install XQuartz to have an X11 server.
<varjag>
yeah i think i had it running with xquartz
<dnhester26>
Yeah, it just gets stuck. The REPL doesn't even return anything, it just gets stuck and eventually I get this error `Socket error in "connect": ETIMEDOUT (Operation timed out)`
<dnhester26>
gilberth: ah, thanks, will look into that
<gilberth>
Yes, this sounds like it wanted to contact the X11 server and nobody answered.
<dnhester26>
Thanks, downloading it now, I'll try and get back with results
rkazak has joined #commonlisp
surabax has joined #commonlisp
<dnhester26>
I had this unrelated thought. I read/heard once that for large organizations with thousands of developers, it's best to have the best developers making the infrastructure and tools for the other developers to use. After having been using CL for a while (I realize I use a very small part of CL and I have lots to learn still), I do feel that it is a bit inconvenient to learn for a lot of people, that there are a ton of subtleties to b
<dnhester26>
e aware of, and that things don't work like other languages. I had this thought of why did python become very popular, and I remember reading some article by a developer saying that the first time he tried it, he could basically just program in it and even do some basic class meta-programming, without prior knowledge of the language, and basically, since it's so easy to use, the syntax is simple, and relatively small, it's easy for
<dnhester26>
new developers to pick up and be productive in it. Now it has a bunch of libraries of course, but it didn't start that way. I thought that maybe, making a very simple subset of CL that abstracts a lot of the complex features and subtleties would be an interesting project. It would both make it easier for newbies to enter into the language, hide away a lot of the power and subtleties that larger organizations would not want most of t
<dnhester26>
heir developers to be using, yet at the same time keep CL and all its power for the "advanced" users. Then I thought, well scheme didn't really work, which is probably a much simpler lisp, but maybe that's for other reasons, like the language not being allowed to evolve for actual commercial purposes since its stewards were more interested in having a language that's easy to teach (not sure if that's true). The biggest difference be
<dnhester26>
tween this and CL would probably be hiding away the package system and the load system, macros, the advanced uses of conditions, and some other things. This would probably have some build process to dynamically process the source files into CL so that instead of loading it in the REPL users would do, like in `python myscript.py`, `simplecl myscript.scl`. What are your thoughts on this? Perhaps I should just abandon the idea of makin
<dnhester26>
g CL more popular?
<dnhester26>
Ok that was a long comment, sorry if it's too long for this format
dnhester26 has quit []
<beach>
I don't think a simpler version will make more people try it. People don't try it because it is not taught in teaching programs. And perhaps there is no value to having more programmers that you describe use it, i.e. programmers to whom full Common Lisp would be too complicated to learn.
<UncleRRR>
wisp can make lisp simple enough
<UncleRRR>
The only difference is that you can just Ctrl-C/V to use python but have to code and check doc to use lisp
<random-nick>
isn't the language being easy to teach exactly what you want?
<random-nick>
oh, dnhester26 left
<beach>
Common Lisp has very simple semantics compared to some of the more popular languages. So it is not hard to teach in my opinion.
<random-nick>
I was referring to the comment about scheme and evolving for commercial purposes
dnhester26 has joined #commonlisp
<beach>
I see.
<UncleRRR>
That would be hard. Racket focuses on teaching and academic usage and Guile focuses on glueing C code instead of making platform for scheme coding.
dnhester26 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<beach>
UncleRRR: What is it that would be hard?
dnhester26 has joined #commonlisp
<UncleRRR>
beach: scheme for commercial use from random-nick's words
<dnhester26>
sorry, I'm back, installing xquartz suddenly restarted my computer without a warning, reading you comments now
<UncleRRR>
I can see that there is basically everything in common lisp implemented(even the jupyter notebook which just mimics org-mode with org-babel) but when I tries to write a script to send an email, copy pasting python code somewhere is much easier than creeping through an ancient common lisp quickload stuff document.
alternateved has joined #commonlisp
<dnhester26>
beach: replying to "And perhaps there is no value to having more programmers that you describe use it". Well the benefit would be twofold. First, since large organizations would be using it, their best developers would potentially make contributions to the CL ecosystem in all sorts of aspects. Second, it would provide a lot of heavily tested libraries for simple but detailed protocols like other languages have which don't necessaril
<dnhester26>
y require, albeit I'm sure would benefit, from the more powerful language features, like for example editing docx files (which is something I need to do for a project which I think I will just call an OS command to get output from a python script)
rkazak has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
<dnhester26>
random-nick: yeah, the language would be easy to teach a la python, but also practical for getting things done. I wouldn't even say easy to teach, I would say have a minimal syntax that's easy to pick up without any need for teaching at all
<gilberth>
Lisp syntax is the most minimal syntax you can have.
<UncleRRR>
A programming language can be powerful on its own, like CL. It can be simple on its own too, like scheme. But if it wanna become popular, it must be easy for dummies--every additional click required makes it less popular.
<random-nick>
UncleRRR: the reason it's easier to copy paste python code is because that python code already exists
<UncleRRR>
For a wider picture, if you regard graphical user interface as kind of dynamic programming REPL as well, I am afraid the most popular programming language is Windows.
<random-nick>
meaning that python being popular helps it get more users
<gilberth>
See, what's happening? It's argued that CL isn't popular because it doesn't like look like "modern" languages. So the idea is to make CL as dumb and stupid as Python. Or to use it in a batch oriented way instead of interactively. If that are the implications of CL being popular, I am not sure, I would like it.
<UncleRRR>
random-nick: (Re: ~the reason ... already exists) Yes, but that alone helps nothing.
<UncleRRR>
gilberth: checkout wisp
<gilberth>
I'm happy with CL and SLIME. Thanks.
<dnhester26>
UncleRRR: Ok, just looked wisp. It's fascinating. However I don't particularly care about python sytax, to the contrary, I would want something to make it easier for people to get into CL. I don't think the parentheses are that big of an issue if people just use an editor that indents code correctly.
<UncleRRR>
wisp is simple enough. But doesn't make it a bit more popular. Why? Because users can't copy and paste for daily tasks. It doesn't matter whether the language is simple or not since those pasting python code don't read the code most times! The problem is whether there is copy-able code right there and easy environment setup method.
<dnhester26>
I'm with gilberth on this one. I want to keep CL. I just wanted to make a stepping stone for people to get into it, like a smaller step on a staircase for those who can't reach the normal step because they have smaller legs (careful, I'm not calling non common lispers stupid, it could just be they have less patience)
<UncleRRR>
dehester26: You are right, parens aren't issue
<jackdaniel>
the situation is better than it used to be. there are now other options than emacs
<dnhester26>
UncleRRR: no, that's a chicken and egg problem. If you read my original comment you will see I addressed this. Python didn't start that way, the whole argument of its popularity was not the available code, rather how easy it is to pick up.
<jackdaniel>
including M^HVScode, Vim and more
nil78 has quit [Quit: Client closed]
<beach>
dnhester26: You are right, not more stupid. But industry has a tendency to hire programmers that don't really have the proper training that a good programmer should have.
<UncleRRR>
That requires CL experts to produce more daily toys instead of expert systems, like sending emails, handling txt files and so on
nil78 has joined #commonlisp
<dnhester26>
Yeah, slime, REPL, and all the power of CL is great, but people don't have the patience to jump through so many hoops, so the idea here is just to reduce the number of hoops dramatically, and then once they are in it, they will naturally want to improve and jump the ret of the hoops on their own. It's again, like adding a lower stepping stone in a staircase. The point is not to remove any of CL, rather just make it more approachable
<dnhester26>
and easier to start
<UncleRRR>
There is Portacle already. Doesn't help much as well.
<dnhester26>
beach: exactly
<varjag>
yeah am skeptical too
<varjag>
people often circle back to this over decades
<dnhester26>
Portacle is still a bunch of hoops to jump through: emacs (this is a high bar believe it or not, I even started with VScode because I couldn't be bothered), and the REPL instead of executing from the terminal. Emacs is a big barrier of entry for many. Sure, it's amazing, but it still takes time to be productive in it instead of having to google "How to close emacs?"
<UncleRRR>
Indeed python starts by simple syntax. So I think if you want CL to be popular you need other ways, like what I said, easy handle daily tasks instead of telling newcomers "We are powerful, we can build excellent systems!"
<varjag>
25 years ago the idea was that the syntax is too complicated, so let's do infix lisp
<varjag>
didn't help dylan much
<gilberth>
Lisp syntax is simpler than Python's syntax.
<bjorkintosh>
I wonder where the notion that doing serious work requires zero to no effort in the beginning?
<bjorkintosh>
these are tools, you gotta know your damned tools.
<bjorkintosh>
they will serve you well.
<varjag>
then it was "lisp should work with jvm and get the wealth of java libraries for free" for a while
<varjag>
we've got that, doesn't help
<random-nick>
there are other things which are simpler in CL, for example LET scoping is very clear and intuitive compared to python variable scoping
<bjorkintosh>
varjag: Clojure works.
<varjag>
clojure is a different language
<varjag>
which is however on a path of decline as well
<dnhester26>
I think we should keep the regular syntax, just literally hide some of te features that make it hard for newbies coming form other languages. Like packages and the build system for example, macros, and things that require subtlety. Even format can stay, just not things that will trip people up
<UncleRRR>
See? This is where CL lost! Python doesn't require user to understand anything, as long as one is willing to google and install python. But CL asks users to understand, losing normal users who are exactly the key of popularity.
<random-nick>
but existing programmers would find LET strange since they are used to algol-style (?) scoping
<bjorkintosh>
to be fair, using popularity as a metric for usefulness is not terribly useful. as long as the tools and language are still being maintained, if you can use it, definitely use it.
<bjorkintosh>
brogramming and software engineering is fad driven. that's why we flock to the lisps and prologs
<varjag>
i don't quite share elitism on this, it has little to do with people smarts
<bjorkintosh>
oh dear. "I'm used to a specific word order in my native language, how dare a different one use a different word order?"
<bjorkintosh>
No.
<UncleRRR>
Lisp is indeed useful since usefulness can be defined on its on. If we are not talking about how to make Lisp popular, we no longer need to talk then! Lisp is already useful.
<varjag>
lisp isn't winning because it appeals only to a subset of programmers
<dnhester26>
Ok, I think my idea got completely lost and now we are just having a discussion over popularity. Just to make it clear, I love CL and don't want to change it nor do I think we should. I wanted to add a stepping stone for people to get into it, that was it.
<bjorkintosh>
winning what?
<UncleRRR>
Yes, exactly, varjag1
<bjorkintosh>
mind share? it's a long game.
<random-nick>
is Clojure more popular than CL?
<varjag>
10 years ago it was
<varjag>
now, not sure
<varjag>
it's certainly less popular among compiler devs :p
<UncleRRR>
dnhester26: There is already Portacle...Maybe you want to do something like what Pygame Zero do to Pygame. But I don't think anything is simpler than scheme now, if copy/pasting python code doesn't count.
<dnhester26>
varjag: there seem to be a lot of new and successful clojure companies out there like that bazilian bank unicorn, Nu?, Mu? something like that
<varjag>
yeah clojure people always bring up that one bank as the success story
<UncleRRR>
haha
<varjag>
it's not a huge bank tho
<varjag>
ttyl
varjag has quit [Quit: ERC 5.5.0.29.1 (IRC client for GNU Emacs 29.3)]
<UncleRRR>
Anyway, I don't think anyone here can give a simpler language like scheme+wisp
<random-nick>
UncleRRR: scheme
<UncleRRR>
what? how could scheme be simpler than scheme with wisp
surabax has quit [Changing host]
surabax has joined #commonlisp
<bjorkintosh>
the simpler the language, the closer to a tar pit it is.
<UncleRRR>
(display "Hello, world!\
<UncleRRR>
becomes display "Hello, world!\n"
<gilberth>
Again: This fancy wisp syntax is more complicated than Lisp syntax.
rkazak has joined #commonlisp
<UncleRRR>
I see, in many ways, yes. But for outsider and newcomers, wisp is much better than parens, like it or not.
<surabax>
varjag: I suspect Dylan didn't get a fair shake because of Apple's troubles at the time of its release
<gilberth>
It's always (<operator> <arg-1> ... <arg-n>) I see funny line noise with this wisp, like ":" and { }. What's the difference between { } and ( )? What's the precedence of the binary operators? Which binary operators are there?
* bjorkintosh
is confused.
<bjorkintosh>
why are we making assumptions for new comers, UncleRRR?
<ecraven>
UncleRRR: if we were to take away everything that troubles newcomers from all languages, not much would be left :P
<UncleRRR>
Because new comers are the key of popularity. And I don't see any value if we are talking about usefulness
<UncleRRR>
The more user, the better.
<ecraven>
UncleRRR: I think many here would not agree with that assessment
<ecraven>
(or at least I don't)
<bjorkintosh>
I don't either.
<ecraven>
I want a language to be useful to *me*, I don't care that much about whether it's first or 51st on TIOBE
<bjorkintosh>
again, a new comer to mandarin or Arabic from English may uselessly insist that it looks nothing like their beloved Roman alphabet.
<UncleRRR>
That's why dialectful lisp isn't popular anyway
<bjorkintosh>
but what does it matter? Learning is a verb. Meaning an effort has to be made.
<surabax>
recently I listened to CHM's interview with Bertrand Serlet, he didn't even mention Dylan while discussing the ATG or the effort to replace Objective-C
<ecraven>
hehe, coming from English, *no* other language looks OK :P
<gilberth>
Popularity is not a value in itself. Especially not if you want to take away one of the advantages of Lisp, namely it's simple syntax, and replace it by something fancy.
skin has joined #commonlisp
<gilberth>
If you want to use Python, use Python. I stay with CL.
<bjorkintosh>
and hasn't that been done before? it has little to no value. new comers to most languages these days just want to google, cut, and paste.
<bjorkintosh>
it's arguable they're actually trying to understand the myriad dictionary types in Python, for instance.
<bjorkintosh>
which gets confusing VERY fast.
<UncleRRR>
ecraven: Then sadly the talk is meanlingless because lisp is itself powerful and useful, we just need to dig in macros and similar, instead of taking about the language itself
<UncleRRR>
:(
<bjorkintosh>
UncleRRR: VB is newcomer friendly. why isn't it more popular?
<surabax>
Racket's team is currently building a Python-like spinoff of Racket called Rhombus, I keep thinking about bolting that syntax onto CL
<bjorkintosh>
but. Why?
<UncleRRR>
Because Googling how to use VB to send an email every hour doesn't give answer as easy as Python's to apply
<bjorkintosh>
you're competing with python then? that's a bit silly.
<bjorkintosh>
why not just use python if you want python?
<UncleRRR>
Every time I google how to use lisp to do this or that, the best results are there is a library 10 years age on ql:)
<bjorkintosh>
it's a question of documentation, not changing the syntax to be more developer friendly.
<gilberth>
UncleRRR: What's wrong with that?
<bjorkintosh>
sorry. 'newcomer' friendly.
<UncleRRR>
bjorkintosh: Don't ask me why use emacs to edit txts when I want easy setup.
<bjorkintosh>
nothing simpler :-D it does get more complicated of course.
<bjorkintosh>
but it grows as you grow.
<UncleRRR>
Not neccessarily change the ANSI CL syntax, but some new-comer-friendly macros and procedures are useful.
<bjorkintosh>
UncleRRR: I think I'm not the right audience for newcomer friendly. I'm a trained machinist, and you do not fool around machine tools if you haven't been properly trained. it will kill you faster than you can say "newcomer".
<bjorkintosh>
In that same sense, I believe any language being a tool requires some effort.
<rootnode>
UncleRRR: if the library has been around 10 years without an update, especially with common lisp, it might also be a sign of "this library is just complete"
<bjorkintosh>
now are there needlessly verbose languages? Yes. Don't use them.
<UncleRRR>
Well, you are an expert. I am just a hobbiest, zero outside pressure to dig into lisp, just interest, and I fell the road hard to walk on.
skin has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
skin has joined #commonlisp
<bjorkintosh>
UncleRRR: you have to learn the language. Python may initially seem very easy, but trust me, it is TITANABOA in disguise.
<rootnode>
Lisp is a very fun and productive language. Coding in a live image is super fun. Only thing you need to unlearn is "this repo looks old". For most other languages, a repo older than 2-3 years is probably not good. WIth Lisp though, they mostly still are good to go
<bjorkintosh>
to properly master python takes an inordinate amount of effort compared to lisp.
enzuru has left #commonlisp [#commonlisp]
<UncleRRR>
The exclusive and expressive syntax is of course useful, but hiding them from newcomers with macros(these levels of macros are sadly only writtable under the hands of experts) are also welcomed.
<bjorkintosh>
but why?
<bjorkintosh>
it is simplicity itself.
<UncleRRR>
More users, more asdf testers, faster evolution of the language itself
<bjorkintosh>
for what reason? it's been around since '59 and still thriving. what more do you want it to do?
<UncleRRR>
said, more users, larger community
<bjorkintosh>
it's not a popularity contest.
<UncleRRR>
You are saying in a classic expert tone, which feels strange to me.
<bjorkintosh>
hmm. I see.
<bjorkintosh>
I apologize for that.
<UncleRRR>
Not being a pop race doesn't mean a language doesn't need more users.
<UncleRRR>
Never mind, I was not annoyed, just kind of curious.
<bjorkintosh>
the most important thing is, you will find support if you need it. your head won't get bitten off if you want to learn the language.
<bjorkintosh>
you will not be dismissed.
<UncleRRR>
Oh, my! I surfed about languages every single day and haven't heard of TCL!
<bjorkintosh>
naturally. but does tcl care? No.
<bjorkintosh>
it is what it is.
<UncleRRR>
Follow this trend, the community would get smaller and smaller. Then the corresponding open source wares would envolve much slower. At last, nobody despite the library and some historians remembers the language.
<bjorkintosh>
which is fine. things live, and things die. nothing is forever.
<ixelp>
Software Preservation Group — Software Preservation Group
<UncleRRR>
Fine
<bjorkintosh>
computers are now so fast that you can emulate many many dead platforms whenever you want.
<UncleRRR>
I would leave now, bye folks.
UncleRRR has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<bjorkintosh>
just learn the language.
<surabax>
Tcl is still strong in the EDA community, afaik
rkazak has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<bjorkintosh>
it's still strong in python for as long as tkinter exists :-D
<bjorkintosh>
they just don't know it. which is okay too.
<thuna`>
Is there a functional way to rewrite https://0x0.st/8obr.txt with built-in functions? Closest I managed to get is (FIND-IF PRED FORMS :KEY #'EVAL) but that returns the form and not its result
<ixelp>
every, some, notevery, notany | Common Lisp Nova Spec
<thuna`>
If SOME took a :KEY argument, it would work, but since it doesn't you would need to do (MAPCAR #'EVAL FORMS) which calls EVAL on all FORMS
<gilberth>
Then say (some (lambda (x) (my-pred (eval x))) my-list)
<gilberth>
And are you sure it's EVAL that you want? That about never is right.
ian__ has joined #commonlisp
<thuna`>
It's the equivalent of EVAL for a sublanguage (that is definitely not the right word), something like (my-eval '<form-which-represents-code-in-a-different-language>)
<thuna`>
So it's not EVAL in the real code
X-Scale has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<dnhester26>
gilberth: Ok, with xquartz installed, tried inspecting something with clouseau and got this error `The value -20 is not of type (UNSIGNED-BYTE 44) when binding SB-IMPL::REMAINING-REQUEST`. Any ideas where to go from here?
Alfr has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<gilberth>
dnhester26: I can't help you here as I don't use SBCL or McCLIM. Sorry.
<dnhester26>
Ok, thanks
Inline has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Inline has joined #commonlisp
<beach>
dnhester26: You could ask in #clim.
<dnhester26>
beach: thanks, will do
josrr has joined #commonlisp
nil78 has quit [Quit: Client closed]
rkazak has joined #commonlisp
dnhester26 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dnhester26 has joined #commonlisp
pranav has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dnhester26 has quit []
JuanDaugherty has joined #commonlisp
nil78 has joined #commonlisp
cmack has joined #commonlisp
Alfr has joined #commonlisp
rkazak has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
bendersteed has quit [Quit: bendersteed]
rkazak has joined #commonlisp
mgl has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
JuanDaugherty has quit [Quit: JuanDaugherty]
nil78 has left #commonlisp [ERC 5.5.0.29.1 (IRC client for GNU Emacs 29.1)]
bpanthi977 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
rkazak has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
Inline has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
bpanthi977 has joined #commonlisp
pranav has joined #commonlisp
vardhan_ has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
decweb has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
rkazak has joined #commonlisp
skin has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
skin has joined #commonlisp
cage has joined #commonlisp
cage has quit [Excess Flood]
cage has joined #commonlisp
rkazak has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
NotThatRPG is now known as NotThatRPG_away
Inline has joined #commonlisp
rkazak has joined #commonlisp
Lord_of_Life_ has joined #commonlisp
rkazak has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
Lord_of_Life has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
Lord_of_Life_ is now known as Lord_of_Life
shawnw_ has joined #commonlisp
rkazak has joined #commonlisp
green_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
green_ has joined #commonlisp
rkazak has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
<aeth>
On almost never wanting CL:EVAL... The only time I've seen a use for CL:EVAL is inside of fancy macros because every form a macro deals with is unevaluated.
rkazak has joined #commonlisp
mgl has joined #commonlisp
FragmentedCurve has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dtman34 has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
z3 has joined #commonlisp
kevingal has joined #commonlisp
JuanDaugherty has joined #commonlisp
zxcvz has joined #commonlisp
zxcvz has quit [Client Quit]
rkazak has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
puke has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
puke has joined #commonlisp
green_ has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
mgl has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
NotThatRPG has joined #commonlisp
NotThatRPG has quit [Client Quit]
NotThatRPG_away has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<contrapunctus>
I was advised to try the Git version of SLIME, but even so the issue persists.
<contrapunctus>
(I've tried it with both Git McCLIM and Quicklisp McCLIM.)
dra has joined #commonlisp
rkazak has joined #commonlisp
green_ has joined #commonlisp
NotThatRPG has joined #commonlisp
<jackdaniel>
contrapunctus: you are absolutely certain that the slime that is loaded in your emacs.conf is the one that you have cloned?
z3 has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
mishoo has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<contrapunctus>
jackdaniel: looks like it.
<contrapunctus>
Latest commit in the SLIME repo adds a check-type to a stream-write-char method, and inspecting the method from SLIME leads to the Swank that's part of SLIME-from-Git.
rkazak has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<jackdaniel>
I see; I don't know what the issue could be then, sorry
mwnaylor has joined #commonlisp
green_ has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
z3 has joined #commonlisp
z3 has quit [Changing host]
z3 has joined #commonlisp
<contrapunctus>
jackdaniel: Why does loading McCLIM load swank again? 🤔
PuercoPop has joined #commonlisp
puercopop_ has joined #commonlisp
PuercoPop has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<Inline>
because cl-swank is a dependency of mcclim
dtman34 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
puercopop_ has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
<cmack>
contrapunctus: have you tried deleting your fasl cache? On recent linux I'd first try ~/.slime/fasl and then ~/.cache/common-lisp
dtman34 has joined #commonlisp
<thuna`>
Is there a way to load individual modules from asdf systems as you would load #:system/module systems?
rkazak has joined #commonlisp
pve has quit [Quit: leaving]
green_ has joined #commonlisp
<jackdaniel>
contrapunctus: drei depends on swank for syntax highlighting (it is an optional dependency that may be turned off with a feature :clim-without-swank), and clim-debugger depends on it for computing backtraces
dtman34 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
* contrapunctus
deletes both caches, restarts Emacs, no luck
<contrapunctus>
Why me T_T
rkazak has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
cage has quit [Quit: rcirc on GNU Emacs 29.4]
JuanDaugherty has quit [Quit: JuanDaugherty]
dtman34 has joined #commonlisp
josrr has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<bike>
tux0r: SET works on dynamic variables only and is deprecated. try (setq foo t) instead.
skin has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
<tux0r>
what is a "not dynamic variable"?
<tux0r>
setq does the trick. hmm..
<bike>
a lexical variable. most variables are lexical variables. in your example, FOO will be a lexical variable unless you (defvar foo ...) or (defparameter foo ...) somewhere.
<tux0r>
ah, i see. thank you. the whole project has a few defvars and defparameters, but in this one case, (let) was a wiser choice.
<tux0r>
why is set deprecated? i mean, lisp is not a mobing standard afaik
<tux0r>
moving
zwr has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
zwr has joined #commonlisp
rkazak has joined #commonlisp
<mange>
Is there still a reason to use setq rather than setf? I just always use setf without thinking.
shka has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
<aeth>
there really is no apparent difference except SETQ works on fewer things.
<aeth>
even this appears to work... ,(let ((l (list 1 2 3))) (with-accessors ((car car)) l (setq car 42) l))
<ixelp>
(let ((l (list 1 2 3))) (with-accessors ((car car)) l (setq car 42) l)) => (42 2 3)
<random-nick>
SETQ is there for backwards compatibility probably
<random-nick>
aeth: that's because SETQ is required to behave as SETF when the symbol names a symbol macro
<aeth>
which would be the only meaningful distinction if that was not the case
<aeth>
unless someone can think of one that the standard didn't think of
rkazak has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
rkazak has joined #commonlisp
djent has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<cmack>
contrapunctus: I just had this on another machine... my quick fix was to `ln -sf ~/.config/emacs/elpa/slime-20250109.1458/swank.asd ~/quicklisp/local-projects/`
rtypo has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
rkazak has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
alternateved has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
z3 has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
amb007 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
amb007 has joined #commonlisp
green_ has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<contrapunctus>
cmack: Thanks, that worked! :o
rkazak has joined #commonlisp
ec has joined #commonlisp
screwlisp has joined #commonlisp
rkazak has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
dra has quit [Quit: Leaving]
akoana has joined #commonlisp
NotThatRPG has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]