Notices by Daniel Kochmański (jackdaniel@functional.cafe)

@amszmidt but vectorp.1 test for a different thing...

@amszmidt ansi-test uses rt, a system for testing developed at mit in 1990.

@amszmidt yes, it is my explanation for you. but yeah, reading the source code is the best way to confirm (I did, so I can only encourage it).

@amszmidt

(deftest vectorp.1
(vectorp 1)
nil)

-->

(pass-only-if
(equal (multiple-value-list (vectorp 1))
(list nil)))

--------------------

(deftest arrayp.1
(notnot-mv (arrayp #(a b c)))
t)

-->

(pass-only-if
(let ((result (multiple-value-list
(arrayp #(a b c)))))
(setf (car result)
(not (not (car result))))
(equal result (list t))))

@amszmidt

It is not broken, because it checks for generalized boolean false, and the only value that is generalized boolean false is NIL. If there are more returned values, then it will fail, as per the other comment.

@amszmidt Both tests are justified and correct.

notnot-mv transforms (values a b c) into (values (not (not a)) b c)

(deftest name form &rest expected-values)

for arrayp.1 we test that
a) it returns a generalized boolean true (hence not not)
b) it returns exactly one value

for vectorp.1 we test that
a) a number 1 is not a vector
b) it returns exactly one value

@PaniczGodek @weekend_editor @amszmidt

DO is a syntactic sugar for tail recursion. I've even made a short blog post about it:

https://turtleware.eu/posts/How-do-you-DO-when-you-do-DO.html

@amszmidt @PaniczGodek such disputes are silly and I like Common Lisp better than others, but "a lisp" refers to many languages and I'd wager an opinion that Common Lisp is closer semantically and functionally to r6rs than LISP 1.5

@amszmidt @PaniczGodek name gatekeeping did more harm than good to lisp community, just saying.

@sznowicki @Watchdog_Polska @icd

Niedługo trzeba będzie mieć konto GMail żeby głosować :3

I know that people snark at HN for many things, but I'm more concerned that it becomes boring. Rare pearls between valuation, ai and opinionated snubby blog pieces. I remember that there was way more hacker than news there at some point and that was fun.

Look what I've found -- CLIM II tutorial from '93:

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ai-repository/ai/lang/lisp/gui/clim/clim_2/luv93tut/slides.ps

#lisp #mcclim #retro

@weekend_editor According to @amoroso 22 years ago:

'Some of the CLIM tutorial's source files indeed include the comment
"Written by John Aspinall at Harlequin, Inc". Does he still work at
Xanalys? How can I contact him?'

https://cl-pdx.com/comp.lang.lisp/2003/sep/118165.html

@aartaka technically readtables are file-local variables, so nothing wrong with using a custom readtable to implement internals.

@aartaka I agree that shilling ones own preferred readtable is unnecessary; I don't buy into the argument that "another dependency layer to manager" is wrong -- the author decides what is the most convenient for them to work with -- this argument could be turned against any dependency, even these that are not introducing exotic syntax.

@solene @thinkberg it is not that openbsd is particularily friendly to common lisp runtimes. W xor X being one of silly limitations from the computation perspective - like having a garden of dried flowers

I've created a liberapay account as an alternative to patreon:

https://liberapay.com/jackdaniel/
https://www.patreon.com/c/jackdaniel_kochmanski

I'm creating Common Lisp Free Software, most involved with #ecl and #mcclim development, but also contributing to other projects when I see fit.

Please consider supporting me financially so my work is sustainable. Cheers!

#lisp #commonlisp

@helge

As a person living in the old FOSS world I feel obliged to answer:

Sure, I'm aware that the code is copied by AI slop companies, loosely compressed and resold with the final aim to eliminate a pesky middlemen between the manager and a working program.

That said I'm not willing to give up on principles because there are burglars in the town. That'd sound silly: "I gave up on writing because someone would certainly take it and regurgitate it. With a profit!". Or -- "well, since they are violating my rights anyway, I'll give up on asserting that it is wrong and leave my doors unlocked".

Licenses clearly matter to users and signal the author's intention (giving a peek at their motivation). Moreover there are pending lawsuits, and hopefully they will succeed, or the bubble will burst eventually.

Another thing is that non-regurgitated software, while never bug-free, will be more often than not free of nonsense.

@tiang common lisp and multiple implementations. Generally because it gives tools fit for any paradigm and let's you choose how you want to write the program, without imposing on you preferences of the language designers about what is the best for you (oop, functional, imperative etc). I call this quality being an 'unopinionated language'. #lisp

Today I've wake up to a couple of LLM-generated made up bug reports in McCLIM repository. What a waste of time.

Thank you slop companies for enabling the erosion of the collaboration platform known as the Internet.