Coming to the end of The Scary Readtable i just recognize some Violence.
The Violence of The Dot.
What does it violate?
The Spirit of Lisp
comming soon.
-
ilias wrote:
> Coming to the end of The Scary Readtable i just recognize some Violence.
>
> The Violence of The Dot.
>
> What does it violate?
>
> The Spirit of Lisp
>
> comming soon.
now.
this dot annoys me.
(a b . c)
I mean what is this?
Full Stop.
After a Full Stop comes nothing.
i want a syntax like... this:
(a b ! c) ; speak: a b "attention" c
how can i change the syntax of the dot '.' ?
Any suggestions?
(i don't know, seriously)
ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<············@usenet.otenet.gr>...
> this dot annoys me.
>
> (a b . c)
>
> I mean what is this?
>
> Full Stop.
>
> After a Full Stop comes nothing.
>
> i want a syntax like... this:
Oops. You put three full stops between two words.
If you want the world to be a safer, saner place,
without war, without violence, and especially
without dots, you have to work towards such a
peace, starting with your own actions.
Software Scavenger wrote:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<············@usenet.otenet.gr>...
>
>
>>this dot annoys me.
>>
>>(a b . c)
>>
>>I mean what is this?
>>
>>Full Stop.
>>
>>After a Full Stop comes nothing.
>>
>>i want a syntax like... this:
>
> Oops. You put three full stops between two words.
> If you want the world to be a safer, saner place,
> without war, without violence, and especially
> without dots, you have to work towards such a
> peace, starting with your own actions.
faulty generalisation.
1st context : programming-language.
2nd context : spoken-language.
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
> Software Scavenger wrote:
> > ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<············@usenet.otenet.gr>...
> >
> >
> >>this dot annoys me.
> >>
> >>(a b . c)
> >>
> >>I mean what is this?
> >>
> >>Full Stop.
> >>
> >>After a Full Stop comes nothing.
> >>
> >>i want a syntax like... this:
> >
> > Oops. You put three full stops between two words.
> > If you want the world to be a safer, saner place,
> > without war, without violence, and especially
> > without dots, you have to work towards such a
> > peace, starting with your own actions.
>
> faulty generalisation.
> 1st context : programming-language.
> 2nd context : spoken-language.
Actually, the original `this dot annoys me....Full Stop.' was a faulty
generalization.
1st context : programming-language.
2nd context : written-language.
There's a difference.
Apart from that, there are times when a slang phrase captures the
essence of what's going on. This is one such case:
"Majoring in minors"
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
The above must be correctly processed by all
conforming implementations of homo-sapiens.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
I was storing data in every conceivable way, including keeping a chain
of sound waves running between the speaker and the microphone. There
was no more memory left to be had....
Fred Gilham wrote:
> Apart from that, there are times when a slang phrase captures the
> essence of what's going on. This is one such case:
>
> "Majoring in minors"
I always like the Baden Powell book "Scouting for Boys"...
;)w
Quoth Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com>:
> Fred Gilham wrote:
>> Apart from that, there are times when a slang phrase captures the
>> essence of what's going on. This is one such case:
>> "Majoring in minors"
> I always like the Baden Powell book "Scouting for Boys"...
Apparently that's a high priority one this morning... (What were they
_thinking_ when they came up with that title?!?!)
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ··········@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/emacs.html
Think of C++ as an object-oriented assembly language.
Fred Gilham wrote:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
>
>>Software Scavenger wrote:
>>
>>>ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<············@usenet.otenet.gr>...
>>>
>>>>this dot annoys me.
>>>>
>>>>(a b . c)
>>>>
>>>>I mean what is this?
>>>>
>>>>Full Stop.
>>>>
>>>>After a Full Stop comes nothing.
>>>>
>>>>i want a syntax like... this:
>>>
>>>Oops. You put three full stops between two words.
>>>If you want the world to be a safer, saner place,
>>>without war, without violence, and especially
>>>without dots, you have to work towards such a
>>>peace, starting with your own actions.
>>
>>faulty generalisation.
>>1st context : programming-language.
>>2nd context : spoken-language.
>
>
> Actually, the original `this dot annoys me....Full Stop.' was a faulty
> generalization.
yes, of course.
> 1st context : programming-language.
> 2nd context : written-language.
>
> There's a difference.
again: of course.
but:
faulty generalization.
1st context: personal generalization fault.
2nd context: foreign generalization fault.
>
> Apart from that, there are times when a slang phrase captures the
> essence of what's going on. This is one such case:
>
> "Majoring in minors"
>
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
> The above must be correctly processed by all
> conforming implementations of homo-sapiens.
> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>
seem that i'm non-conforming.
ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<············@usenet.otenet.gr>...
> Software Scavenger wrote:
> > ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<············@usenet.otenet.gr>...
> >
> >
> >>this dot annoys me.
> >>
> >>(a b . c)
> >>
> >>I mean what is this?
> >>
> >>Full Stop.
> >>
> >>After a Full Stop comes nothing.
> >>
> >>i want a syntax like... this:
> >
> > Oops. You put three full stops between two words.
> > If you want the world to be a safer, saner place,
> > without war, without violence, and especially
> > without dots, you have to work towards such a
> > peace, starting with your own actions.
>
> faulty generalisation.
> 1st context : programming-language.
> 2nd context : spoken-language.
Ilias, just exactly in which programming language does "." mean "full stop"? As
of spoken (I'd rather say: written) languages, hearing that in "A. Polevitsky"
the part that spells "Polevitsky" comes after a full stop, i.e., is *nothing*,
makes me feel damn blood-thirsty.
Nothing personal.
Regards,
A. Polevitsky.
A. Polevitsky wrote:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<············@usenet.otenet.gr>...
>
>>Software Scavenger wrote:
>>
>>>ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<············@usenet.otenet.gr>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>this dot annoys me.
>>>>
>>>>(a b . c)
>>>>
>>>>I mean what is this?
>>>>
>>>>Full Stop.
>>>>
>>>>After a Full Stop comes nothing.
>>>>
>>>>i want a syntax like... this:
>>>
>>>Oops. You put three full stops between two words.
>>>If you want the world to be a safer, saner place,
>>>without war, without violence, and especially
>>>without dots, you have to work towards such a
>>>peace, starting with your own actions.
>>
>>faulty generalisation.
>>1st context : programming-language.
>>2nd context : spoken-language.
>
> Ilias, just exactly in which programming language does "." mean "full stop"?
In no one i know.
> As
> of spoken (I'd rather say: written) languages,
yes!
> hearing that in "A. Polevitsky"
> the part that spells "Polevitsky" comes after a full stop, i.e., is *nothing*,
> makes me feel damn blood-thirsty.
My english teacher says "Full Stop" when reading text to us to write down.
She was pretty.
Will you say my english-teacher was wrong?
I don't believe you.
The "Full Stop" cames so wonderfull out of her lips... cannot be wrong.
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
> A. Polevitsky wrote:
>
> > Ilias, just exactly in which programming language does "." mean "full stop"?
>
> In no one i know.
So what you're saying is that you pestered comp.lang.smalltalk to the
extent that you did, and you didn't even learn the syntax of the
language?!?! I mean, it fits on a single sheet of A4 paper.
The period in Smalltalk means roughly the same thing as in English.
Where Lisp is literally descended from math notation ("." as
constructor/joiner), ST tried to pattern itself after English ("."
signals end-of-statement).
> My english teacher says "Full Stop" when reading text to us to write down.
She obviously wasn't a native speaker -- I've never heard anyone say
this. The closest is the telegraph convention of saying "stop" for
".".
> She was pretty.
>
> Will you say my english-teacher was wrong?
Yes. Just the other day, a pretty young woman was trying to tell me
that the bus in Oakland only costs $1 for adults. Her physical
appearance, however, did not make this true.
> I don't believe you.
>
> The "Full Stop" cames so wonderfull out of her lips... cannot be wrong.
Well, it was wonderful to hear this woman tell me the bus only costs a
dollar, but no amount of appealing to aesthetics will convince AC
Transit that their published fares in reality $.50 too high.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
>
>
>>A. Polevitsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ilias, just exactly in which programming language does "." mean "full stop"?
>>
>>In no one i know.
>
> So what you're saying is that you pestered comp.lang.smalltalk to the
> extent that you did, and you didn't even learn the syntax of the
> language?!?! I mean, it fits on a single sheet of A4 paper.
What has the language syntax to do with the (lousy)
evaluation-conditions of the products?
Single sheet of A4 paper? sounds good.
Have you a good pointer for me?
> The period in Smalltalk means roughly the same thing as in English.
> Where Lisp is literally descended from math notation ("." as
> constructor/joiner), ST tried to pattern itself after English ("."
> signals end-of-statement).
this sounds very good.
>>My english teacher says "Full Stop" when reading text to us to write down.
>
> She obviously wasn't a native speaker -- I've never heard anyone say
> this. The closest is the telegraph convention of saying "stop" for
> ".".
i've downloaded babylon translator, so i can read the complicated
english many people write.
says the same.
babylon translator isn't a 'native speaker', too?
if so, suggest me another one.
'international english'.
>>She was pretty.
>>
>>Will you say my english-teacher was wrong?
>
> Yes. Just the other day, a pretty young woman was trying to tell me
> that the bus in Oakland only costs $1 for adults. Her physical
> appearance, however, did not make this true.
>
>>I don't believe you.
>>
>>The "Full Stop" cames so wonderfull out of her lips... cannot be wrong.
>
> Well, it was wonderful to hear this woman tell me the bus only costs a
> dollar, but no amount of appealing to aesthetics will convince AC
> Transit that their published fares in reality $.50 too high.
Proof:
The .com-boom !
The dot-com-boom ?
The Full-Stop-com-boom.
Fits better!
···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>> > Ilias, just exactly in which programming language does "." mean "full stop"?
>>
>> In no one i know.
>
> So what you're saying is that you pestered comp.lang.smalltalk to the
> extent that you did, and you didn't even learn the syntax of the
Pascal, too, no? The program ends with a #\.
>> My english teacher says "Full Stop" when reading text to us to write down.
>
> She obviously wasn't a native speaker -- I've never heard anyone say
> this. The closest is the telegraph convention of saying "stop" for
> ".".
Or possibly she was English. In English English, the end-of-sentence
marker is typically called a "full stop" (as opposed to, I believe,
"period")
Perhaps you don't consider English people to be native speakers of
English, though.
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> >> > Ilias, just exactly in which programming language does "." mean "full stop"?
> >>
> >> In no one i know.
> >
> > So what you're saying is that you pestered comp.lang.smalltalk to the
> > extent that you did, and you didn't even learn the syntax of the
>
> Pascal, too, no? The program ends with a #\.
Well, yes, but I was particularly surprised about Ilias not knowing
that's the end-of-line marker in ST. Actually, I wasn't surprised at
all, only feigning it.
> >> My english teacher says "Full Stop" when reading text to us to write down.
> >
> > She obviously wasn't a native speaker -- I've never heard anyone say
> > this. The closest is the telegraph convention of saying "stop" for
> > ".".
>
> Or possibly she was English. In English English, the end-of-sentence
> marker is typically called a "full stop" (as opposed to, I believe,
> "period")
How odd ... I'd never heard this, but that's not very surprising,
considering how little the word "period" comes up.
> Perhaps you don't consider English people to be native speakers of
> English, though.
Is this an English thing, or do the Scots and Irish say this too?
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
>>Perhaps you don't consider English people to be native speakers of
>>English, though.
> Is this an English thing, or do the Scots and Irish say this too?
Hmmm. Not sure although the Welsh may have an answer...
;)w
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when ···@hurricane.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) would write:
> Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
>
>> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>>
>> >> > Ilias, just exactly in which programming language does "." mean "full stop"?
>> >>
>> >> In no one i know.
>> >
>> > So what you're saying is that you pestered comp.lang.smalltalk to the
>> > extent that you did, and you didn't even learn the syntax of the
>>
>> Pascal, too, no? The program ends with a #\.
>
> Well, yes, but I was particularly surprised about Ilias not knowing
> that's the end-of-line marker in ST. Actually, I wasn't surprised at
> all, only feigning it.
>
>> >> My english teacher says "Full Stop" when reading text to us to write down.
>> >
>> > She obviously wasn't a native speaker -- I've never heard anyone say
>> > this. The closest is the telegraph convention of saying "stop" for
>> > ".".
>>
>> Or possibly she was English. In English English, the end-of-sentence
>> marker is typically called a "full stop" (as opposed to, I believe,
>> "period")
>
> How odd ... I'd never heard this, but that's not very surprising,
> considering how little the word "period" comes up.
>
>> Perhaps you don't consider English people to be native speakers of
>> English, though.
>
> Is this an English thing, or do the Scots and Irish say this too?
It might be.
It might also be an archaic use pointing back to the days of
telegraphs and Morse Code where they wound up adding in the "full
stop" to forcibly indicate the ends of sentences.
The /classic/ story (that may be apocryphal) is of the woman who, in
her travels, sent a telegram to her husband asking about a piece of
jewelry she wished to buy.
He sent back the message:
"No. Price too high."
In the "pre-full-stop" days of the telegraph, this was translated into
the telegram:
"NO STOP PRICE STOP TOO STOP HIGH STOP"
She, receiving the message "No price too high", was very pleased, and
bought the jewelry.
It /must/ be an American story, because the telegraph company
apparently got sued... :-)
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ····················@" "454aa"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html
"The real romance is out ahead and yet to come. The computer
revolution hasn't started yet. Don't be misled by the enormous flow of
money into bad defacto standards for unsophisticated buyers using poor
adaptations of incomplete ideas." -- Alan Kay
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> Well, yes, but I was particularly surprised about Ilias not knowing
> that's the end-of-line marker in ST. Actually, I wasn't surprised at
> all, only feigning it.
i don't know it.
i've no reason to lie.
* Daniel Barlow
| Or possibly she was English. In English English, the end-of-sentence marker
| is typically called a "full stop" (as opposed to, I believe, "period")
You probably mean Bwitish English.
| Perhaps you don't consider English people to be native speakers of English,
| though.
You mean the people who cannot pronounce the 'R' sound except where it
should not be pronounced? I mean, I have BBC World, and they talk about
restoring lore and awder in countries in Africar and Asiar in a state of
emegency, brewring with violent dissent. It has been getting worse, too, so
somebody over on that island must be considering their speech impediment
some sort of fetish. To make matters even worse, it is not uncommon to find
uniquely British misspellings that reflect their mispronunciation. People
write "supprise" and "surport", and the unchecked spread of mispronunciation
to countries that have no history of similar speech impediments is about to
cause an even greater disparity between spelling and pronunciation in English.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<············@usenet.otenet.gr>...
[...]
> (a b . c)
>
> I mean what is this?
>
> Full Stop.
In the tradition of mathematical notation at least,
the dot _combines_ the items on its left and right.
One obvious example is the dot product.
(So that nobody is misled into seeing `termination'
in dotted-list notation.)
---Vassil.
Vassil Nikolov wrote:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message news:<············@usenet.otenet.gr>...
> [...]
>
>>(a b . c)
>>
>>I mean what is this?
>>
>>Full Stop.
>
> In the tradition of mathematical notation at least,
> the dot _combines_ the items on its left and right.
> One obvious example is the dot product.
i'm undereducated.
i know only: + - * / exponent radical
but radical i don't like.
confuses me sometimes.
> (So that nobody is misled into seeing `termination'
> in dotted-list notation.)
?
but it *is* termination.
. c => terminate with c
ilias wrote:
>
> this dot annoys me.
>
> (a b . c)
>
> I mean what is this?
>
Normally the cdr of a cons cell points to another cons cell,
(with the last cdr pointing to nil). If the cdr points to a
symbol then you get the dot notation printed. Dot notation
can be used on all cons cells but this would just cause a
proliferation of parenthesis.
USER(2): (cons 'a '(b))
(A B)
USER(3): (cons 'a 'b)
(A . B)
USER(4): '(a . (b))
(A B)
USER(5): (cdr '(a b))
(B)
USER(6): (cdr '(a . b))
B
USER(7): (cdr '(b))
NIL
USER(8): '(a . nil)
(A)
USER(9): '(a . (b . c))
(A B . C)
You may want to read _The Anatomy of Lisp_ by Allen for more
details on the Lisp data structure and its implementation.
Thanks,
Jeff Sandys
Jeff Sandys wrote:
> ilias wrote:
>
>>this dot annoys me.
>>
>>(a b . c)
>>
>>I mean what is this?
>
> Normally the cdr of a cons cell points to another cons cell,
> (with the last cdr pointing to nil). If the cdr points to a
> symbol then you get the dot notation printed. Dot notation
> can be used on all cons cells but this would just cause a
> proliferation of parenthesis.
i see.
> You may want to read _The Anatomy of Lisp_ by Allen for more
> details on the Lisp data structure and its implementation.
not for now.
i just want to change the syntax of the dot.
i'd like to write
(a b ! c)
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·················@usenet.otenet.gr...
>
> i'd like to write
>
> (a b ! c)
Hey, just copy the character syntax from . to ! and
Robert is your mother's brother. It *must* work....
Joe Marshall wrote:
> "ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·················@usenet.otenet.gr...
>
>>i'd like to write
>>
>>(a b ! c)
>
>
> Hey, just copy the character syntax from . to ! and
> Robert is your mother's brother. It *must* work....
>
>
>
the dot is not defined as a macro character.
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/02_d.htm
(get-macro-character #\. ) => NIL NIL
(set-syntax-from-char #\! #\.)
makes no sense.
the parsing-specific behaviour of the dot is fixed.
can anyone explain me this?
"ilias" <·······@pontos.net> wrote in message ·················@usenet.otenet.gr...
>
> the dot is not defined as a macro character.
>
> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/02_d.htm
>
> (get-macro-character #\. ) => NIL NIL
>
> (set-syntax-from-char #\! #\.)
>
> makes no sense.
>
> the parsing-specific behaviour of the dot is fixed.
>
> can anyone explain me this?
>
The LISP you use seems to be *not* conforming to the ANSI Standard.
Cause ANSI-Conforming Common Lisp must execute this code.
*The general definition of the macro characters:*
http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/02_add.htm
2nd paragraph
" A macro character has an associated function called a reader macro
function that implements its specialized parsing behavior. An
association of this kind can be established or modified under control of
a conforming program by using the functions set-macro-character and
set-dispatch-macro-character."
*concretisation to the consing dot:*
" A *consing dot* has an associated function called a reader macro
function that implements its specialized parsing behavior. [...] "
this proofs: [ *claim 3* : the #\) reader macro *must* be used to signal
its occurrence to the #\. reader-macro]
QED
Joe Marshall wrote:
> The LISP you use seems to be *not* conforming to the ANSI Standard.
>
> Cause ANSI-Conforming Common Lisp must execute this code.
>
>
> *The general definition of the macro characters:*
>
> http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/02_add.htm
>
> 2nd paragraph
> " A macro character has an associated function called a reader macro
> function that implements its specialized parsing behavior. An
> association of this kind can be established or modified under control of
> a conforming program by using the functions set-macro-character and
> set-dispatch-macro-character."
>
> *concretisation to the consing dot:*
>
> " A *consing dot* has an associated function called a reader macro
> function that implements its specialized parsing behavior. [...] "
>
> this proofs: [ *claim 3* : the #\) reader macro *must* be used to signal
> its occurrence to the #\. reader-macro]
this sounds very good.
but you cannot hold that.
the dot wins.
>>the dot is not defined as a macro character.
>>
>>http://www.lispworks.com/reference/HyperSpec/Body/02_d.htm
but: you just give the following proof:
- a good laguage-design does not need many proofs. You take a
proof-template an replace the 'variables'.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: LISP - The Violence of The Dot
Date:
Message-ID: <ey31y7x7bsg.fsf@cley.com>
* at news wrote:
> i just want to change the syntax of the dot.
> i'd like to write
> (a b ! c)
You've written about a million articles by now explaining why it has
to work to copy character syntax around. So you ought to be able to
work out how to do this, surely? Do remember to make sure that you
read (5 ! 4) as (120 4) though.
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> * at news wrote:
>
>
>>i just want to change the syntax of the dot.
>
>
>>i'd like to write
>
>
>>(a b ! c)
>
>
> You've written about a million articles by now explaining why it has
> to work to copy character syntax around. So you ought to be able to
> work out how to do this, surely?
The dot is violent.
I cannot beat him.
The Violence of The Dot.
The Spirit of Lisp.
together?
how?
ilias wrote:
> Coming to the end of The Scary Readtable i just recognize some Violence.
>
> The Violence of The Dot.
>
> What does it violate?
>
> The Spirit of Lisp
>
> comming soon.
>
> -
>
"A Gentle Introduction to Symbolic Computation"
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/LispBook/
page 72 (of the book)
page 84 (of the pdf document)
Introduces very clear (with graphics) into the dot notations.
I would like to know:
Who exactly introduces the dot-syntax into Common Lisp.
From: Edward O'Connor
Subject: Re: LISP - The Violence of The Dot
Date:
Message-ID: <uit15330u.fsf@oconnor.cx>
> I would like to know:
>
> Who exactly introduces the dot-syntax into Common Lisp.
See page 2 of the LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual, first published in 1962.
--
Edward O'Connor
···@oconnor.cx
Edward O'Connor wrote:
>>I would like to know:
>>
>>Who exactly introduces the dot-syntax into Common Lisp.
Ok, introduced in LISP 1962 (see LPM 1.5).
And then standardized into Common Lisp by the working group.
>
> See page 2 of the LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual, first published in 1962.
is this available online?
i could not find it through a simple search.
a further question:
- were the concepts 'readtable', 'reader-macro-functions', 'Lisp-reader'
already introduced at this time (in 1962)?
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
> Edward O'Connor wrote:
> >>I would like to know:
> >>
> >>Who exactly introduces the dot-syntax into Common Lisp.
>
> Ok, introduced in LISP 1962 (see LPM 1.5).
>
> And then standardized into Common Lisp by the working group.
>
> > See page 2 of the LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual, first published in
> > 1962.
>
> is this available online?
>
> i could not find it through a simple search.
>
> a further question:
>
> - were the concepts 'readtable', 'reader-macro-functions',
> 'Lisp-reader' already introduced at this time (in 1962)?
Getting a grasp of historical forces?
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
715 Broadway 10th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
ilias wrote:
> Edward O'Connor wrote:
> > >I would like to know:
> > >
> > >Who exactly introduces the dot-syntax into Common Lisp.
> >
> > See page 2 of the LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual, first published in 1962.
>
You have to understand that S-expressions (atoms, lists and dots) were
meant to be the internal representation of Lisp and the M-expressions
were to be the human programming representation of Lisp. The ability
to make the read-eval-print loop made Lisp the first interactive
computer language, programmers didn't wait for a M-expression
translator and started writing programs with S-expressions.
You can read John Mcarthy's history of Lisp here:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/lisp/lisp.html