I've found those lectures referred to from
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/view/1096
(feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/SICP) enlightening.
I'm mid way through hour seven, and quite a few light bulbs have turned on
on my mind.
Thoses lectures are excellent, but are Scheme based. Anyone know of any
equivalent lecture for CL ? (Or should I start toying with DrScheme >-)
Many Thanks.
--
JFB ()
verec wrote:
> I've found those lectures referred to from
> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/view/1096
> (feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/SICP) enlightening.
>
> I'm mid way through hour seven, and quite a few light bulbs have turned on
> on my mind.
>
> Thoses lectures are excellent, but are Scheme based. Anyone know of any
> equivalent lecture for CL ? (Or should I start toying with DrScheme >-)
I don't know of any, but I worked through SICP doing the exercises in
Lisp. For the vast majority of the book, all you need to change is:
A Scheme function definition:
(define (f-apply f a b)
(f a b))
Becomes:
(defun f-apply (f a b)
(funcall f a b))
'define' becomes 'defun', the paren doesn't enclose the function name,
only the parameters, and in the special case where you're passing
functions and then applying those functions to arguments, you have to
tell Lisp you're referring to the function binding, as above and below.
Calling the defined function in Scheme:
(f-apply + 1 2) => 3
Calling the defined function in Lisp, two equivalent notations:
(f-apply #'+ 1 2) => 3
(f-apply (function +) 1 2) => 3
On 2005-11-07 00:24:23 +0000, Cameron MacKinnon
<··········@clearspot.net> said:
> A Scheme function definition:
> (define (f-apply f a b)
> (f a b))
>
> Becomes:
> (defun f-apply (f a b)
> (funcall f a b))
[...]
> Calling the defined function in Scheme:
> (f-apply + 1 2) => 3
>
> Calling the defined function in Lisp, two equivalent notations:
> (f-apply #'+ 1 2) => 3
> (f-apply (function +) 1 2) => 3
Waahooo! And another light bulb!
Many Thanks.
--
JFB ()
Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> writes:
And as an additional exercise, one can always write a DEFINE macro in
Common Lisp, so that some of the syntactic transformations don't need to
be made in typing in the scheme code. This will be a nice introduction
to macro programming in CL, since you actually have to analyze the
structure of the DEFINE in order to figure out if you want to expand the
DEFINE into DEFPARAMETER (not DEFVAR!) or DEFUN.
(The translation based on separate value and function namespaces in
Common Lisp does still need to be done, though).
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
verec wrote:
> I've found those lectures referred to from
> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/view/1096
> (feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/SICP) enlightening.
>
> I'm mid way through hour seven, and quite a few light bulbs have turned on
> on my mind.
>
> Thoses lectures are excellent, but are Scheme based. Anyone know of any
> equivalent lecture for CL ? (Or should I start toying with DrScheme >-)
>
> Many Thanks.
http://wiki.alu.org/AudioVideo has a good selection of links.
drewc
--
Drew Crampsie
drewc at tech dot coop
"... the most advanced use of lisp in the field of bass lure sales"
-- Xach on #lisp
On 2005-11-07 00:15:18 +0000, drewc <·····@rift.com> said:
> http://wiki.alu.org/AudioVideo has a good selection of links.
Excellent. And off I go :-)
Many Thanks
--
JFB ()