I'm a noob to lisp. I tried it some time ago, but gave up because it was
all too tricky, and didn't provide enough libraries that I was looking for.
Recently, I managed to get Debian installed on an old rusty machine near
our servers. Installation of CLisp on Debian is a breeze, thanks to
its ober-cool package management system. I decided to give CLisp another
look-see. I noticed that it appears to be developing lately; with an
Oracle database interface no less.
I'm going to try an experiment of sending a message using SMTP functions
implemented in CLisp. If I can get it to work, then I will be impressed.
It's a good system- reliable and works anywhere and has a fast load
time. Of course, it will probably never be as fast as SBCL or CMUCL.
The only way I see that would make it better is if it was ever
retargeted onto a more common VM (Java VM, .NET, Parrot) but that's a
topic that's already brought up and the pros and cons are well known.
······@gmail.com wrote:
> Of course, it will probably never be as fast as SBCL or CMUCL.
> The only way I see that would make it better is if it was ever
> retargeted onto a more common VM (Java VM, .NET, Parrot) but that's a
> topic that's already brought up and the pros and cons are well known.
They could also implement dynamic compilation (to machine instructions)
of CLISP bytecodes.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>
> They could also implement dynamic compilation (to machine
instructions)
> of CLISP bytecodes.
I'm aware that the JVM (say) is not a good target for Lisp systems,
but if it was, would a Lisp which targetted it benefit from the whole
JIT stuff that modern JVMs do?
Really what I'm wondering about is how much, if any, support from the
src->JVM (or src->whatever-byte-code-system) compiler is needed by the
subsequent JVM->native stage that is done for some code on typical JVM
(or other) systems?
(In particular I don't want to reopen thw whole `why not target the
JVM' debate, this is just me idly wondering.)
--tim
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> Really what I'm wondering about is how much, if any, support from the
> src->JVM (or src->whatever-byte-code-system) compiler is needed by the
> subsequent JVM->native stage that is done for some code on typical JVM
> (or other) systems?
>
> (In particular I don't want to reopen thw whole `why not target the
> JVM' debate, this is just me idly wondering.)
Armed Bear Common Lisp targets the JVM.
Paul
>
> Armed Bear Common Lisp targets the JVM.
>
> Paul
Doesn't seem like ABCL is receiving a lot of support from the CL
community- Is there any reason it's not more popular? I, myself, *love*
SISC Scheme, which has a similar design.
--
Conrad Barski, M.D.
Just downloaded. Looks very nice. Good for more testing.
Cheers
Marco
······@gmail.com wrote:
>>Armed Bear Common Lisp targets the JVM.
>>
>> Paul
>
>
> Doesn't seem like ABCL is receiving a lot of support from the CL
> community- Is there any reason it's not more popular? I, myself, *love*
> SISC Scheme, which has a similar design.
>
> --
> Conrad Barski, M.D.
>
······@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> Armed Bear Common Lisp targets the JVM.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Doesn't seem like ABCL is receiving a lot of support from the CL
> community- Is there any reason it's not more popular? I, myself, *love*
> SISC Scheme, which has a similar design.
I can't speak for the CL community. Speaking for me personally, I'm
using architectures for which there are already lisps that target the
hardware directly, and thus have no need of one that requires a JVM.
Plus it's GPLed, so I'd have to think about how that affects any code
I want to run in it, which is not something I have to worry about much
in SBCL.
But: if I'me ever doomed to writing something that must interoperate
with Java I expect I'll be very glad of it, and in the meantime it
deserves to succeed on the basis of its name alone. So if you're
trying to use any of my stuff with it and find that it doesn't work
(for reasons that /aren't/ ANSI bugs in ABCL) I'll be very happy to
merge supplied fixes.
-dan
--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"
Hi Daniel Barlow,
>> Doesn't seem like ABCL is receiving a lot of support from the CL
>> community- Is there any reason it's not more popular? I, myself, *love*
>> SISC Scheme, which has a similar design.
>
> I can't speak for the CL community. Speaking for me personally, I'm
> using architectures for which there are already lisps that target the
> hardware directly, and thus have no need of one that requires a JVM.
> Plus it's GPLed, so I'd have to think about how that affects any code I
> want to run in it, which is not something I have to worry about much in
> SBCL.
ABCL (not J the editor) is now licensed under the GPL with the equivalent
of the GNU Classpath exception. This essentially allows binary
redistribution without the viral-like properties of the GPL. If requested,
one still has to provide the source to versions of ABCL one distributes.
Regards,
Adam
Hi drcode,
>> Armed Bear Common Lisp targets the JVM.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Doesn't seem like ABCL is receiving a lot of support from the CL
> community- Is there any reason it's not more popular? I, myself, *love*
> SISC Scheme, which has a similar design.
It's still maturing. There's a reason the version number is 0.0.4+.
Regards,
Adam
"Tim Bradshaw" <··········@tfeb.org> writes:
> Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>>
>> They could also implement dynamic compilation (to machine
>> instructions) of CLISP bytecodes.
>
> I'm aware that the JVM (say) is not a good target for Lisp systems,
> but if it was, would a Lisp which targetted it benefit from the
> whole JIT stuff that modern JVMs do?
>
> Really what I'm wondering about is how much, if any, support from
> the src->JVM (or src->whatever-byte-code-system) compiler is needed
> by the subsequent JVM->native stage that is done for some code on
> typical JVM (or other) systems?
At for the JVM there's very little the src->JVM layer *can* do since
there's so many constraints on Java bytecodes. However, a compiler
that generated bytecodes that were completely different in pattern
than those generated by actual Java compilers might not benefit as
much since the JIT guys are, obviously, worried about making actual
Java code go fast, not every possible combination of JVM bytecodes.
The other thing about modern JVMs is that a lot of the work that has
gone into them is about fancy garbage collectors and good threading,
not necessarily code generation. For instance, there's been a lot of
work, as I understand it, in the Java world on writing garbage
collectors that work well for very large heaps since lots of folks are
buying boxes with 4G of RAM just to run one instance of Weblogic. (Or
at least that's what they were doing last time I paid attention which
was before I started my book, i.e. forever ago. ;-))
Presumably those efforts will benefit any language that targets the
JVM.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp
* Peter Seibel wrote:
> The other thing about modern JVMs is that a lot of the work that has
> gone into them is about fancy garbage collectors and good threading,
> not necessarily code generation. For instance, there's been a lot of
> work, as I understand it, in the Java world on writing garbage
> collectors that work well for very large heaps since lots of folks are
> buying boxes with 4G of RAM just to run one instance of Weblogic. (Or
> at least that's what they were doing last time I paid attention which
> was before I started my book, i.e. forever ago. ;-))
I think this is right. At least where I work we're flat up against
the address-space limit in the JVMs and having to split stuff up
and/or spill things to disk. If we had proper machines (we're using
Linux/x86, where the JVM has a heap limit of only 1.5GB, which is
really not very big) we'd probably be running 4-8GB heaps. Even if
the applications were sanely written we'd probably still have the same
size (because we could have more in one heap).
Thread issues are often a problem, but I think a lot of these are
actually because, since we only use little machines, we have bucket
loads of them all talking RPC to each other and thus debugging races
&c is enormously hard.
Unfortunately `small number of large machines' is now heresy: lots of
blades is the answer, don't you know...
--tim
Mark Carter <··@privacy.net> writes:
> I'm a noob to lisp. I tried it some time ago, but gave up because it
> was all too tricky, and didn't provide enough libraries that I was
> looking for.
Lisp has more libraries for doing "ordinary" things these days
than it used to have.
> Recently, I managed to get Debian installed on an old rusty machine
> near our servers. Installation of CLisp on Debian is a breeze, thanks
> to its ober-cool package management system. I decided to give CLisp
> another look-see. I noticed that it appears to be developing lately;
> with an Oracle database interface no less.
>
> I'm going to try an experiment of sending a message using SMTP
> functions implemented in CLisp. If I can get it to work, then I will
> be impressed.
Good luck. Feel free to ask in comp.lang.lisp for advice.
A nitpicky pedantic point: there is a language called "Common
Lisp" and one implementation of that language called "CLISP".
It is unwise to call either of them "CLisp" for fear of confusion. :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> A nitpicky pedantic point: there is a language called "Common
> Lisp" and one implementation of that language called "CLISP".
> It is unwise to call either of them "CLisp" for fear of confusion. :-)
Either of them? But my computer seems to know that when I type
'clisp' at the prompt, that means to start the clisp program. lisp
otoh starts up CMUCL, sbcl starts up... Well, you get the idea ;-)
--
An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1
From: Sam Steingold
Subject: Re: clisp on the rise?
Date:
Message-ID: <u654tmz1t.fsf@gnu.org>
> * David Steuber <·····@qnivq-fgrhore.pbz> [2004-10-29 03:55:59 -0400]:
>
> Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> A nitpicky pedantic point: there is a language called "Common
>> Lisp" and one implementation of that language called "CLISP".
>> It is unwise to call either of them "CLisp" for fear of confusion. :-)
>
> Either of them? But my computer seems to know that when I type
> 'clisp' at the prompt, that means to start the clisp program. lisp
> otoh starts up CMUCL, sbcl starts up... Well, you get the idea ;-)
Common Lisp (AKA "CL", AKA "cl") is a language.
CLISP (AKA "clisp") is an implementation of that language.
"CLisp" is confusing because it looks like an abbreviation for "Common
Lisp" [I wonder why I never see "C-Lisp" - maybe because if you subtract
Lisp from C you get a negative quantity].
If you want to be perfectly pedantic and clear, you might want to say
"ANSI Common Lisp" and "GNU CLISP" instead.
--
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
Abandon all hope, all ye who press Enter.
Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> writes:
> > * David Steuber <·····@qnivq-fgrhore.pbz> [2004-10-29 03:55:59 -0400]:
> >
> > Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
> >
> >> A nitpicky pedantic point: there is a language called "Common
> >> Lisp" and one implementation of that language called "CLISP".
> >> It is unwise to call either of them "CLisp" for fear of confusion. :-)
> >
> > Either of them? But my computer seems to know that when I type
> > 'clisp' at the prompt, that means to start the clisp program. lisp
> > otoh starts up CMUCL, sbcl starts up... Well, you get the idea ;-)
>
> Common Lisp (AKA "CL", AKA "cl") is a language.
> CLISP (AKA "clisp") is an implementation of that language.
> "CLisp" is confusing because it looks like an abbreviation for "Common
> Lisp" [I wonder why I never see "C-Lisp" - maybe because if you subtract
> Lisp from C you get a negative quantity].
>
>
> If you want to be perfectly pedantic and clear, you might want to say
> "ANSI Common Lisp" and "GNU CLISP" instead.
Fair enough. But Debian comes with clisp as a package (along with
cmucl, sbcl, and perhaps others). In the context of Debian, when
someone says they install CLISP, I think they mean the GNU CLISP
implementation of ANSI Common Lisp.
On top of all that, the common-lisp-controler package takes many of
the ANSI CL libraries that are available for Debian and builds them
for each of the ANSI CL implementations you have installed.
This makes Debian Linux very attractive for playing with Lisp because
it is effectively a "Lisp in a box" distribution. About the only
thing it doesn't do for you (so far as I know) is plop some elisp into
your .emacs to fire up one of the Lisps from Emacs (or XEmacs).
--
An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> This makes Debian Linux very attractive for playing with Lisp because
> it is effectively a "Lisp in a box" distribution. About the only
> thing it doesn't do for you (so far as I know) is plop some elisp into
> your .emacs to fire up one of the Lisps from Emacs (or XEmacs).
You mean ilisp? That's already there.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Rahul Jain <·····@nyct.net> writes:
> David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>
> > This makes Debian Linux very attractive for playing with Lisp because
> > it is effectively a "Lisp in a box" distribution. About the only
> > thing it doesn't do for you (so far as I know) is plop some elisp into
> > your .emacs to fire up one of the Lisps from Emacs (or XEmacs).
>
> You mean ilisp? That's already there.
Does installing ilisp cause your .emacs to be edited to include it?
I've been using SLIME from CVS, so I simply haven't looked. I haven't
even looked to see if there is a Debian package for SLIME yet.
--
An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1
On 31 Oct 2004 06:02:50 -0500, David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> wrote:
> I've been using SLIME from CVS, so I simply haven't looked. I
> haven't even looked to see if there is a Debian package for SLIME
> yet.
<http://commonwerx.org/software/contrib/slime/deb/>
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> Rahul Jain <·····@nyct.net> writes:
>
>> David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>>
>> > This makes Debian Linux very attractive for playing with Lisp because
>> > it is effectively a "Lisp in a box" distribution. About the only
>> > thing it doesn't do for you (so far as I know) is plop some elisp into
>> > your .emacs to fire up one of the Lisps from Emacs (or XEmacs).
>>
>> You mean ilisp? That's already there.
>
> Does installing ilisp cause your .emacs to be edited to include it?
The admin installing a package should NOT cause your user-specific files
to be modified. That's just wrong. The package adds code that's run from
the system-wide init file that adds autoload definitions. M-x sbcl for
example.
> I've been using SLIME from CVS, so I simply haven't looked. I haven't
> even looked to see if there is a Debian package for SLIME yet.
It's not. Luke doesn't want it to be packaged before the code is
relatively stable.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
> Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
>
> > A nitpicky pedantic point: there is a language called "Common
> > Lisp" and one implementation of that language called "CLISP".
> > It is unwise to call either of them "CLisp" for fear of confusion. :-)
>
> Either of them? But my computer seems to know that when I type
> 'clisp' at the prompt, that means to start the clisp program. lisp
> otoh starts up CMUCL, sbcl starts up... Well, you get the idea ;-)
Either "Common Lisp" or "CLISP". If you type "CLisp" at your
computer, I bet it won't run CLISP. :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com> writes:
>
>
>>Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>A nitpicky pedantic point: there is a language called "Common
>>>Lisp" and one implementation of that language called "CLISP".
>>>It is unwise to call either of them "CLisp" for fear of confusion. :-)
>>
>>Either of them? But my computer seems to know that when I type
>>'clisp' at the prompt, that means to start the clisp program. lisp
>>otoh starts up CMUCL, sbcl starts up... Well, you get the idea ;-)
>
>
> Either "Common Lisp" or "CLISP". If you type "CLisp" at your
> computer, I bet it won't run CLISP. :-)
If you have clisp installed on your Mac, it
may well do just that:
·······@gulch randall $ CLisp
i i i i i i i ooooo o ooooooo ooooo ooooo
I I I I I I I 8 8 8 8 8 o 8 8
I \ `+' / I 8 8 8 8 8 8
\ `-+-' / 8 8 8 ooooo 8oooo
`-__|__-' 8 8 8 8 8
| 8 o 8 8 o 8 8
------+------ ooooo 8oooooo ooo8ooo ooooo 8
Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Michael Stoll 1992, 1993
Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Marcus Daniels 1994-1997
Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Pierpaolo Bernardi, Sam Steingold 1998
Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Sam Steingold 1999-2002
[1]>
--
Randall Randall <·······@randallsquared.com>
Property law should use #'EQ , not #'EQUAL .
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:17:08 GMT, Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> wrote:
> Either "Common Lisp" or "CLISP". If you type "CLisp" at your
> computer, I bet it won't run CLISP. :-)
On my Wintendo box it does.
So you're using an OS with a case-sensitive reader? That's not very
Lisp-like, isn't?
:)
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:17:08 GMT, Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Either "Common Lisp" or "CLISP". If you type "CLisp" at your
> > computer, I bet it won't run CLISP. :-)
>
> On my Wintendo box it does.
>
> So you're using an OS with a case-sensitive reader? That's not very
> Lisp-like, isn't?
>
> :)
He specifically mentioned CMU CL. I think that implies Unix of
some description, and I don't think CMU CL runs on Mac OS X.
When I said "you", I meant it. :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:32:55 GMT, Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> wrote:
> He specifically mentioned CMU CL. I think that implies Unix of some
> description, and I don't think CMU CL runs on Mac OS X.
It does:
<http://lemonodor.com/archives/000700.html>
<http://www.pmsf.de/personal/darwin/>
<ftp://ftp.common-lisp.net/pub/project/cmucl/binaries/cmucl-2004-07-25-090-ppc-darwin.tar.bz2>
Cheers,
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:32:55 GMT, Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > He specifically mentioned CMU CL. I think that implies Unix of some
> > description, and I don't think CMU CL runs on Mac OS X.
>
> It does:
Cool! I sit corrected.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:56:44 +0200, Edi Weitz wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:32:55 GMT, Gareth McCaughan <················@pobox.com> wrote:
>> He specifically mentioned CMU CL. I think that implies Unix of some
>> description, and I don't think CMU CL runs on Mac OS X.
> It does:
> <http://lemonodor.com/archives/000700.html>
> <http://www.pmsf.de/personal/darwin/>
> <ftp://ftp.common-lisp.net/pub/project/cmucl/binaries/cmucl-2004-07-25-090-ppc-darwin.tar.bz2>
And:
<http://fink.sourceforge.net>
This one is probably the easiest installation for those who already have fink.
--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
In article <·············@agharta.de>, Edi Weitz wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:17:08 GMT, Gareth McCaughan
<················@pobox.com> wrote:
> So you're using an OS with a case-sensitive reader? That's not very
> Lisp-like, isn't?
What are the OSes that have case-sensitive readers, that have current
Common Lisp implementations? I can't seem to find one for VMS...
--
·······@sdf.lonestar.org www.not-art.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
The Mouser felt a compulsive urge to take out his dagger and stab himself
in the heart. A man had to die when he saw something like that.
(Fritz Leiber)
Bruce Nagel <·······@ukato.freeshell.org> writes:
> In article <·············@agharta.de>, Edi Weitz wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:17:08 GMT, Gareth McCaughan
> <················@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > So you're using an OS with a case-sensitive reader? That's not very
> > Lisp-like, isn't?
>
> What are the OSes that have case-sensitive readers, that have current
> Common Lisp implementations? I can't seem to find one for VMS...
Is anybody supporting an ANSI Common Lisp for VMS at all, these days?
I haven't heard of anything for a decade, at least.
Bruce Nagel <·······@ukato.freeshell.org> writes:
> What are the OSes that have case-sensitive readers, that have current
> Common Lisp implementations? I can't seem to find one for VMS...
Did you mean to write case-insensitive? Mac OS X is sorta case-insensitive,
since its main file system, hfs+, is.
--
(espen)
Mark Carter wrote:
> I'm going to try an experiment of sending a message using SMTP functions
> implemented in CLisp. If I can get it to work, then I will be impressed.
Well, I did try it, it did work, so I am impressed. I used the cl-smtp
library, and it all worked straight off the bat. That's given me
confidence that Lisp is worth another look. It doesn't apparently
support server authentication, but that doesn't matter for my particular
purpose.
I'm thinking that Lisp works best under Linux platforms (Debian makes
life even easier), in environments that the developer can administer.
Maybe it's not so good for developing applications that a user can just
download off the net and deploy with a non-threatening graphical
installer. Still, in that sense it's not that much worse off than the
popular scripting languages like Python.
Good stuff.
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:59:27 +0100, Mark Carter <············@ukmail.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking that Lisp works best under Linux platforms (Debian
> makes life even easier), in environments that the developer can
> administer. Maybe it's not so good for developing applications that
> a user can just download off the net and deploy with a
> non-threatening graphical installer.
Shameless plug:
<http://weitz.de/regex-coach/>
Comes with a "non-threatening graphical installer" for Windows, is
written in Common Lisp.
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Edi Weitz wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:59:27 +0100, Mark Carter <············@ukmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm thinking that Lisp works best under Linux platforms (Debian
>>makes life even easier), in environments that the developer can
>>administer. Maybe it's not so good for developing applications that
>>a user can just download off the net and deploy with a
>>non-threatening graphical installer.
>
>
> Shameless plug:
>
> <http://weitz.de/regex-coach/>
>
> Comes with a "non-threatening graphical installer" for Windows, is
> written in Common Lisp.
Good stuff. I've had a look at it. I've never used a regex tester
before, but it's a good idea.
Using Lisp, you say. That's really impressive! Which Lisp did you use to
create it?
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:30:42 +0100, Mark Carter <············@ukmail.com> wrote:
> Good stuff. I've had a look at it. I've never used a regex tester
> before, but it's a good idea.
>
> Using Lisp, you say. That's really impressive! Which Lisp did you
> use to create it?
LispWorks from Xanalys. See
<http://weitz.de/regex-coach/#technical>
Cheers,
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Hi there,
Kodos The Python Regex Debugger works better. Try this expression
^.*?(\t+?)".*?"
for line like:
aaaa<tab>bbbb
I could not enter <tab> from the keyboard in W2K:(
-pekka-
Edi Weitz wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:30:42 +0100, Mark Carter <············@ukmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Good stuff. I've had a look at it. I've never used a regex tester
>>before, but it's a good idea.
>>
>>Using Lisp, you say. That's really impressive! Which Lisp did you
>>use to create it?
>
>
> LispWorks from Xanalys. See
>
> <http://weitz.de/regex-coach/#technical>
>
> Cheers,
> Edi.
>
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:11:01 +0300, Pekka Niiranen <··············@wlanmail.com> wrote:
> Kodos The Python Regex Debugger works better.
I checked it briefly. It looks like it doesn't support "standalone"
regexes, it can't split, and it doesn't have a stepper. The download
is almost twice as big and it's also pretty slow. That's what you mean
with "works better?"
> Try this expression
>
> ^.*?(\t+?)".*?"
>
> for line like:
>
> aaaa<tab>bbbb
>
> I could not enter <tab> from the keyboard in W2K:(
As the docs say, TAB is used to conveniently switch between the
panes. The Regex Coach supports many Emacs-like key bindings,
including C-q TAB to include a literal TAB character.
Cheers,
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
> Edi Weitz wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:11:01 +0300, Pekka Niiranen <··············@wlanmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Kodos The Python Regex Debugger works better.
>
>
> I checked it briefly. It looks like it doesn't support "standalone"
> regexes, it can't split, and it doesn't have a stepper. The download
> is almost twice as big and it's also pretty slow. That's what you mean
> with "works better?"
Fine:) Just replace Emacs-like key bindings for "normal ones" in
the Windows version;)
>
>
>>Try this expression
>>
>>^.*?(\t+?)".*?"
>>
>>for line like:
>>
>> aaaa<tab>bbbb
>>
>>I could not enter <tab> from the keyboard in W2K:(
>
>
> As the docs say, TAB is used to conveniently switch between the
> panes. The Regex Coach supports many Emacs-like key bindings,
> including C-q TAB to include a literal TAB character.
>
> Cheers,
> Edi.
>
Pekka Niiranen <··············@wlanmail.com> writes:
> Fine:) Just replace Emacs-like key bindings for "normal ones" in
> the Windows version;)
What are "normal" ones? I have yet to see a Windows program with the
functionality of Emacs; besides Emacs itself.
--
;; Matthew Danish -- user: mrd domain: cmu.edu
;; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:15:51 +0300, Pekka Niiranen <··············@wlanmail.com> wrote:
> Fine:) Just replace Emacs-like key bindings for "normal ones" in the
> Windows version;)
I could just answer with "You get what you pay for." But while we're
at it: What /is/ the "normal" key binding for "insert literal"
(quoted-insert) on Windows?
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
"Edi Weitz" <········@agharta.de> wrote in message
··················@agharta.de...
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:15:51 +0300, Pekka Niiranen
> <··············@wlanmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Fine:) Just replace Emacs-like key bindings for "normal ones" in the
>> Windows version;)
>
> I could just answer with "You get what you pay for." But while we're
> at it: What /is/ the "normal" key binding for "insert literal"
> (quoted-insert) on Windows?
I know some windows programs will respond nicely to ctrl-Enter, as in insert
a newline rather than click the OK button or what have you. Maybe
ctrl-Tab...?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> I know some windows programs will respond nicely to ctrl-Enter, as in insert
> a newline rather than click the OK button or what have you. Maybe
> ctrl-Tab...?
No, that means tab, breaking out of the current tabbing cycle you're in
if you're at the end of the cycle (for example, in a table, it will tab
you out of the table if you're at the end instead of tabbing you back up
to the beginning of the table).
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
"Rahul Jain" <·····@nyct.net> wrote in message
···················@nyct.net...
> "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
>
>> I know some windows programs will respond nicely to ctrl-Enter, as in
>> insert
>> a newline rather than click the OK button or what have you. Maybe
>> ctrl-Tab...?
>
> No, that means tab, breaking out of the current tabbing cycle you're in
> if you're at the end of the cycle (for example, in a table, it will tab
> you out of the table if you're at the end instead of tabbing you back up
> to the beginning of the table).
I just remembered too that ctrl-tab in many windows apps will cycle through
the sub-windows. ie if you have several excel files open, ctrl-tab cycles
through them.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:14:57 +0200, Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de>
wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:15:51 +0300, Pekka Niiranen <··············@wlanmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Fine:) Just replace Emacs-like key bindings for "normal ones" in the
>> Windows version;)
>
>I could just answer with "You get what you pay for." But while we're
>at it: What /is/ the "normal" key binding for "insert literal"
>(quoted-insert) on Windows?
Hold down the ALT key and type the character code in decimal on the
numeric keypad. Some apps require a leading zero on the code.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
> Shameless plug:
>
> <http://weitz.de/regex-coach/>
Another one:
<http://www.netfonds.no/manual_pt_eng.php>
> Comes with a "non-threatening graphical installer" for Windows, is
> written in Common Lisp.
Ditto.
The Linux and Mac editions of Prime Trader do not have installers,
since installing it is only a matter of moving a single binary to a
bin-directory. That's more or less the only thing the
windows-installer does as well, of course, but apparently windows
users feel lost without a setup.exe to click on.
...Peder...
--
This must be Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Mark Carter <··@privacy.net> wrote on Wed, 27 Oct 2004:
> Recently, I managed to get Debian installed on an old rusty machine near our
> servers. Installation of CLisp on Debian is a breeze, thanks to its ober-cool
> package management system.
FYI: CMUCL and SBCL (both high-quality open source Common Lisp implementations)
are also both available via Debian's apt-get.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Whether they ever find life there or not, I think Jupiter should be considered
an enemy planet.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey [1999]
Don Geddis wrote:
> Mark Carter <··@privacy.net> wrote on Wed, 27 Oct 2004:
>
>>Recently, I managed to get Debian installed on an old rusty machine near our
>>servers. Installation of CLisp on Debian is a breeze, thanks to its ober-cool
>>package management system.
>
>
> FYI: CMUCL and SBCL (both high-quality open source Common Lisp implementations)
> are also both available via Debian's apt-get.
Thanks. I'd like to concentrate on CLISP for now because it is also
available for Windows.
On the Windows side, I hope to create a small gui app, probably with
LTk, and see how deployable it is. It appears that the way to go is to
create a memory image, and copy across clisp.exe; plus any external
libraries like Tk. Package the whole shebang with something like Inno
Setup, and, hopefully, Bob's my uncle, Fanny's my aunt.
On the Linux side of things, it's all on the server anyway, so the
question of deployment basically goes away.
Looking at the longer term, and assuming that the happy day comes when
an app might be distributed to a client, the licence appears acceptable.
It would appear that as long as I distribute the CLISP sources together
with instructions on how to rebuild the memory image, then I'm legal. I
need not distribute sources. Not that that would be of much practical
use to our clients anyway. Most of them can't even spell, never mind
compile programs. :)
Please forgive me for any technical inaccuracies that I have made. It's
all new to me, so I'm at the steepest part of the learning curve.