[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: complexity of mechanism
On Apr 13, felix winkelmann wrote:
> On 4/13/06, Eli Barzilay <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems you're trying violently to misunderstand me:
> > (You keep contradicting your own argument. At least IMO.)
> Not at all.
[Please skip this paragraph.]
[Yes, I know that you're not contradicting your own argument. I just
don't think that you're not not contradicting your own argument
strongly enough for me to not say that you're contradicting your own
argument. (And I'm not contradicting myself in this sentence.)]
[Just ignore the above.]
> But this is getting boring, [...]
Right -- so there's this useful bit of functionality that just must be
implemented over and over and over again. If I lower my music for a
second I can actually hear the c.l.l folks laugh.
> What about:
> (message-box <title> <prompt> [<config-object>]) ?
> Configuration-objects could be composed, inherited, modified by
> accessors, whatever. I claim such an interface is cleaner, possibly
> less verbose and likely to be more efficient.
And so we get to the point where you give me an example that I
explicitly talked about why it doesn't work. Hint: the summary was
that while this is possible, I've never seen real code that uses it
yet. I should have put a "#0=" there so that I can now say: #0#.
Maybe this will work:
> And, if you desperately need it, use symbols as keywords and
> roll your own: (message-box 'title "hello" ...). No need for
> a distinct keyword type or ugly #! lambda-list markers (and a subsequent
> overcomplication of lamba-list processing).
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!