Hi,
I recently bought LispWorks (love it!) & have been working with
cl-http, and came up with a few questions about how to use Lisp
environments in general and Lispworks in specific.
- With respect to packages, cl-http has a number of them related to
dynamically generating html. I've made enough headway to generate
working pages & things start to make sense. I ending up with code
looking like this;
(html3.2:with-standard-document-body (:stream stream)
(http:image-line :stream stream)
(html3.2:with-anchor-noted (:reference http:*cl-http-home-page-url-string* :stream stream)
(ns1.1:image "/cl-http/icons/power.gif" "Powered by Common Lisp Hypermedia Server"
:stream stream))
Is there a way & would it be good practice to get the shown
functions (and others) to be present in the default user package so
the explicit package reference isn't needed? I spent some time
with import, which wasn't working as I'd like- though its quite
possible I was using it incorrectly.
- Second, how does a skilled Lisp programmer use the environment to
take maximum advantage of it? I'm tending to create a defun with a
short name to reload the .lisp file after I save it in Emacs. Its
clumsy and redundant, but I'm sort of stuck because I prefer Emacs
to the Lispworks editor.
Thanks for your help,
Gregm
this is both an answer and a question for more info:
> take maximum advantage of it? I'm tending to create a defun with a
> short name to reload the .lisp file after I save it in Emacs. Its
> clumsy and redundant, but I'm sort of stuck because I prefer Emacs
> to the Lispworks editor.
That is exactly i have been wondering for some time.
Does ilisp which facilitate a "tight" integration of emacs with other
lisps, have the ability to make the functions of the other lisp
"interactive" ? Any other similar packages/editors?
one other possible solution is to use the other editors (like hemlock
or lispwork), and load all your favorite elisp libraries using the
elisp-->common-lisp parser elisp.el (sourceforge.net), but has anybody
every got this working? (i am scared to even try...)
anyone? Thanks
--Deepak, http://www.glue.umd.edu/~deego
>>>>> "Deepak" == Deepak Goel <·····@rac1.wam.umd.edu> writes:
Deepak> this is both an answer and a question for more info:
>> take maximum advantage of it? I'm tending to create a defun with a
>> short name to reload the .lisp file after I save it in Emacs. Its
>> clumsy and redundant, but I'm sort of stuck because I prefer Emacs
>> to the Lispworks editor.
Deepak> That is exactly i have been wondering for some time.
Deepak> Does ilisp which facilitate a "tight" integration of emacs with other
Deepak> lisps, have the ability to make the functions of the other lisp
Deepak> "interactive" ? Any other similar packages/editors?
I do not know what you mean by making a lisp function "interactive",
but if you think about (re)evaluating a function definition right out
of the file buffer, it is very simple even when using packages. Just
position the cursor with the defun and hit M-C-x (for instance) to
send the definition to the lisp process.
Both ILISP and Franz' ELI interface scoops up the `in-package'
expression when reading the file into emacs and thus is able to make
sure that the evaluation issued from the buffer is done in the right
package.
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | Ericsson Telebit, Skanderborgvej 232, DK-8260 Viby J
Phone: +45 8938 5244 | email: ·················@ted.ericsson.dk
Fax: +45 8938 5101 | web: www.ericsson.com
------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- ·······@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
Ted Sandler <··········@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > I recently bought LispWorks (love it!)...
>
> did you pay the full $1000? If so, was it worth it?
"full $1000"? I am at a loss as to why anyone would cite factually
erroneous informaton like this without checking.
The professional edition costs less than that. Don't take my word for it;
the prices for Xanalys products are posted on their web site:
http://www.xanalys.com/software_tools/buy/index.html
Not everyone may be able to afford the professional edition, hence the
interest by many in lower cost or free versions, but I personally
think the Xanalys product is competitively priced (against other
commercial non-lisp language offerings) and is of commercially
excellent quality. I especially like the fact that they have free
deliverable runtimes with their Professional Edition. (Their
Enterprise edition does not offer free runtimes.)
Ted Sandler wrote:
>> I recently bought LispWorks (love it!)...
>
> did you pay the full $1000? If so, was it worth it?
As far as I can tell - It is possible to get some really good deals with
Xanalys. It looks like there actually some really good opportunities to get
some good offers, because there is a new release in 3Q 2001.
Give it a try - I'am a proud and satisfied owner of LispWorks Enterprise
4.1.20 and got an offer I was not able to resist! I have to say that it
helped me to write those articles some time ago...
Regards,
Jochen
Ted Sandler <··········@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > I recently bought LispWorks (love it!)...
>
> did you pay the full $1000? If so, was it worth it?
>
I bartered some work in exchange for the $800 Professional version
being bought for me. Its considerably faster than clisp which I was
using before. I just used lw at work parsing & summarizing output from
a logic analyzer & found it substantially faster even without
compiling. Theres quite a lot to Lispworks, I'll be learning how to
use it for months. The one thing I do miss about clisp is the
readline interface, but I imagine there are configuration options &
whatnot that I don't know about which could make such things possible.
Gregm
Greg Menke wrote:
> Ted Sandler <··········@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> > I recently bought LispWorks (love it!)...
>>
>> did you pay the full $1000? If so, was it worth it?
>>
>
> I bartered some work in exchange for the $800 Professional version
> being bought for me. Its considerably faster than clisp which I was
> using before. I just used lw at work parsing & summarizing output from
> a logic analyzer & found it substantially faster even without
> compiling. Theres quite a lot to Lispworks, I'll be learning how to
> use it for months. The one thing I do miss about clisp is the
> readline interface, but I imagine there are configuration options &
> whatnot that I don't know about which could make such things possible.
If you miss the TAB-completion of CLISP try CTRL-ALT-i in LW.
Regards,
Jochen
·······@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2001 18:27:57 +0200, Jochen Schmidt <···@dataheaven.de>
> wrote:
>
>>Greg Menke wrote:
>>
>
>>If you miss the TAB-completion of CLISP try CTRL-ALT-i in LW.
>
> Is there a way to get "tips" about parameters, as in MSVC, Delphi or
> Corman Lisp?
There's the Menu Expression->Arguments Command ( Meta-= )
In Emacs with Ilisp the Argumentlist is automatically shown in the
minibuffer when you type a space after a function-name.
Regards,
Jochen
·······@hotmail.com writes:
> Is there a way to get "tips" about parameters, as in MSVC, Delphi or Corman
> Lisp?
Ctrl-Shift-A will give you the argument list in the minibuffer.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Way to use the environment & packages
Date:
Message-ID: <nkjwv7x76gf.fsf@tfeb.org>
Ted Sandler <··········@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> did you pay the full $1000? If so, was it worth it?
>
Do you have a job? If so, ask your employer what your internal or
external charge-out rate is. Now work out how many hours $1000 (which
is more than LW professional for windows/linux costs) translates to.
As I said in an earlier article: most people have *no idea at all* of
the basic economics of what they do.
--tim
From: David E. Young
Subject: Re: Way to use the environment & packages
Date:
Message-ID: <3AF2B280.8D9D29DF@nc.rr.com>
Ted Sandler wrote:
> > I recently bought LispWorks (love it!)...
>
> did you pay the full $1000? If so, was it worth it?
>
I have the 4.1.20 Enterprise Edition for Linux, and am very, very
satisfied. LispWorks on my Linux platform is rock-solid, fast, and it
"feels good", if you know what I mean. Probably my only disappointment
is in Emacs integration. I use ILisp (a fine product!) rather than the
LispWorks editor; unfortunately, there is poor support for managing
interactions with multiple Lisp processes (threads) via the Emacs <->
Lisp interface. Franz does a much better job here with its Emacs
Lisp Interface (ELI) to Allegro.
In my opinion, Xanalys should work with the ILisp team to address the MP
issue. I understand their motivation for prefering a tightly-integrated
editor; I really do. But, for those of us working within a
multi-language environment and who have been on Emacs for many years, it
doesn't make sense for us to use anything else. I know, I know; put up
or shut up. And if I wasn't heavily involved in my own open source
effort I would "put up".
Anyhow, just a few thoughts.
Regards,
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David E. Young
http://lisa.sourceforge.net (defun real-language? (lang)
········@computer.org (eq lang 'LISP))
"But all the world understands my language."
-- Franz Joseph Haydn (1732-1809)
Greg Menke <··········@mindspring.com> writes:
> - Second, how does a skilled Lisp programmer use the environment to
> take maximum advantage of it? [...] I'm sort of stuck because I
> prefer Emacs to the Lispworks editor.
In that case, you should use ilisp. Get the latest one from
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/ilisp/>. However, you're missing a
lot if you don't use the browsers and the window debugger. And
sometimes it's very convenient to just click on something to edit it
in the LW editor. You can still use Emacs for most of your editing.
--
Pekka P. Pirinen, Harlequin Limited
There may be no candidates you want to vote for, but there are
certainly some you want to vote *against*.
> Greg Menke <··········@mindspring.com> writes:
> > - Second, how does a skilled Lisp programmer use the environment to
> > take maximum advantage of it? [...] I'm sort of stuck because I
> > prefer Emacs to the Lispworks editor.
>
> In that case, you should use ilisp. Get the latest one from
> <http://sourceforge.net/projects/ilisp/>. However, you're missing a
> lot if you don't use the browsers and the window debugger. And
> sometimes it's very convenient to just click on something to edit it
> in the LW editor. You can still use Emacs for most of your editing.
I like the browsers & debugger windows in lw- its just I prefer to
edit in Emacs; it was hard enough to get the keymappings where I
wanted them in the first place. I've found its not <too> horrible to
edit the same file in both Emacs and lw, make changes with Emacs, then
revert in the lw editor- still its clumsy. But I'll give ilisp a
try...
Gregm
Greg Menke wrote:
>
>> Greg Menke <··········@mindspring.com> writes:
>> > - Second, how does a skilled Lisp programmer use the environment to
>> > take maximum advantage of it? [...] I'm sort of stuck because I
>> > prefer Emacs to the Lispworks editor.
>>
>> In that case, you should use ilisp. Get the latest one from
>> <http://sourceforge.net/projects/ilisp/>. However, you're missing a
>> lot if you don't use the browsers and the window debugger. And
>> sometimes it's very convenient to just click on something to edit it
>> in the LW editor. You can still use Emacs for most of your editing.
>
> I like the browsers & debugger windows in lw- its just I prefer to
> edit in Emacs; it was hard enough to get the keymappings where I
> wanted them in the first place. I've found its not <too> horrible to
> edit the same file in both Emacs and lw, make changes with Emacs, then
> revert in the lw editor- still its clumsy. But I'll give ilisp a
> try...
I've both running. I saved a console-image of lispworks so that Ilisp runs
with it and after starting lispworks in my emacs I first start
multithreading and then start the IDE in a new thread. I don't know if
there are any problems if you do so, but it seems to work.
Regards
Jochen
Greg Menke <··········@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> I like the browsers & debugger windows in lw- its just I prefer to
> edit in Emacs; it was hard enough to get the keymappings where I
> wanted them in the first place.
I missed xemacs for a while as well. But, changing the key bindings is pretty
simple. My .lispworks contains the following :
(in-package 'editor)
(bind-key "Indent New Line" #\control-\j)
(bind-key "List Buffer Definitions" '#(#\control-\c #\d))
(SETF CAPI:*EDITOR-HIGHLIGHT-STYLE* '(:background :grey65))
(defcommand "My Set Mark" (p)
"Sets the mark and turns on highlighting"
"Sets the mark and turns on highlighting"
(set-mark-command p)
(hl-on-command p))
(bind-key "My Set Mark" ···········@)
(bind-key "My Set Mark" #\control-space)
which basically sets up the keys that I was missing. No doubt the keys you are
missing are different, but it is pretty easy to change them. Just take a look
in the online editor manual.
To be honest, the thing which took me some time was finding out how to pick
different default fonts in the various tools and turn off the rather garish
default colours. That involved changing my .Xdefaults file (yeuch!). I won't
bore the group with the contents of that file - but let me know if you want
it. As far as editing lisp is concerned, I now find I prefer the lispworks
editor - basically because of the way it integrates with the rest of the
environment, and because the default 'lisp editing' key bindings are pretty
similar to the ones in xemacs when editing emacs lisp.
Barry.
> To be honest, the thing which took me some time was finding out how to pick
> different default fonts in the various tools and turn off the rather garish
> default colours. That involved changing my .Xdefaults file (yeuch!). I won't
> bore the group with the contents of that file - but let me know if you want
> it.
Ahh, now thats a relief. Thanks for that tidbit- I found those
default colors were moderately abrasive. With a nice, quiet
background I might just use the lw editor after all...
Gregm
> To be honest, the thing which took me some time was finding out how to pick
> different default fonts in the various tools and turn off the rather garish
> default colours. That involved changing my .Xdefaults file (yeuch!). I won't
> bore the group with the contents of that file - but let me know if you want
> it. As far as editing lisp is concerned, I now find I prefer the lispworks
> editor - basically because of the way it integrates with the rest of the
> environment, and because the default 'lisp editing' key bindings are pretty
> similar to the ones in xemacs when editing emacs lisp.
Using editres I tracked down resource keys for a couple items; the
editor pane, menu bar, and the default for all podium windows- the
dropdown menu colors are resisting configuration at the moment &
theres no sign of menu font configuration (I imagine thats something
to put in ~/.lispworks). If you'll pardon me asking, what interesting
resource keys were you able to track down?
Thanks,
Gregm
On Fri, 04 May 2001 23:46:29 +0200, ·······@hotmail.com wrote:
> True. The only thing I miss is syntax highlighting and some sort of
Do you mean something M-x font-lock-mode? Note that such formatting issues
are beyond the scope of ILISP.
> 'intellisense' feature. Is this sort of thing planned for a future version?
What is intellisense?
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/
> >
> >> 'intellisense' feature. Is this sort of thing planned for a future version?
> >
> >What is intellisense?
>
> A feature of MSVC that automagically shows class members, function arguments
> and possible completions in a popup combobox. It makes life easier. :)
Just as long as its possible to turn it off. I find that feature an eyesore...
Gregm
Greg Menke wrote:
>
> ....& have been working with
> cl-http,
Would you mind say which version CL-HTTP you use ?
Didn't you found some unexpected in its work, did you?
I've tried 70-23 from
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/iiip/doc/cl-http/
it works but hangs sometime and has some other
instabilities.
I even can't manage to build devo version 70-123
ftp://ftp.ai.mit.edu/pub/users/jcma/cl-http/devo/
--
Vladimir Zolotych ······@eurocom.od.ua
"Vladimir V. Zolotych" <······@eurocom.od.ua> writes:
> >
> > ....& have been working with
> > cl-http,
>
> Would you mind say which version CL-HTTP you use ?
> Didn't you found some unexpected in its work, did you?
>
> I've tried 70-23 from
> http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/iiip/doc/cl-http/
> it works but hangs sometime and has some other
> instabilities.
>
> I even can't manage to build devo version 70-123
> ftp://ftp.ai.mit.edu/pub/users/jcma/cl-http/devo/
I'm using 70-23, seems to work fine. But I'm using it trivially at
the moment. What are you trying to run it on?
Gregm
Greg Menke wrote:
>
> I'm using 70-23, seems to work fine. But I'm using it trivially at
> the moment. What are you trying to run it on?
Also not seriously yet because I can't manage
to make it work with KOI8-R characters.
I've try to run it on Slackware 7.0 as server
with several Windows/NT/98 clients connected to it.
I use CMUCL 18c as you.
--
Vladimir Zolotych ······@eurocom.od.ua
> >
> > I'm using 70-23, seems to work fine. But I'm using it trivially at
> > the moment. What are you trying to run it on?
>
> Also not seriously yet because I can't manage
> to make it work with KOI8-R characters.
>
> I've try to run it on Slackware 7.0 as server
> with several Windows/NT/98 clients connected to it.
>
> I use CMUCL 18c as you.
I'm running Lispworks 4.1.20- I've not tried cmucl as I'm quite
inexperienced in advanced Lisp environments.
Gregm