They got this one wrong, didn't they? That should be bad-ideap. Just
goes to show how fine the line between clever and stupid. Was there some
concept of "hyphen momentum"?!
Or maybe it should be bad-idea-p but also zero-p. yeah, probably better
to delineate. What is not open to question is the need for consistency.
kt
--
The Dalai Lama gets the same crap all the time.
-- Kenny Tilton on c.l.l when accused of immodesty
Ken Tilton wrote:
> What is not open to question is the need for consistency.
Also: why the heck is it ATOM and NULL instead of ATOMP and NULLP?
Cheers, Pillsy
Pillsy wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
>>What is not open to question is the need for consistency.
>
>
> Also: why the heck is it ATOM and NULL instead of ATOMP and NULLP?
Well, I kinda like the present-at-the-creation feeling I get from those
inconsistencies. meanwhile, zero-p? Nah, we need to borrow back
something else from scheme: zero?
Too-easy-p
kt
--
The Dalai Lama gets the same crap all the time.
-- Kenny Tilton on c.l.l when accused of immodesty
Ken Tilton ha escrito:
> Pillsy wrote:
> > Ken Tilton wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What is not open to question is the need for consistency.
> >
> >
> > Also: why the heck is it ATOM and NULL instead of ATOMP and NULLP?
>
> Well, I kinda like the present-at-the-creation feeling I get from those
> inconsistencies. meanwhile, zero-p? Nah, we need to borrow back
> something else from scheme: zero?
>
> Too-easy-p
What about TooEasyP?
Opps wait, this is about inconsistencies on inconsistencies.
Ken Tilton wrote:
> inconsistencies. meanwhile, zero-p? Nah, we need to borrow back
> something else from scheme: zero?
Or even better, Python: is-zero or eq-zero.
The Scheme/Ruby notation confuses the predicates themselves with the
operators that test them. The name of a predicate might as well be a
predicate.
So lispifying the C ?: operator would get you something like
(? (is-zero x) (dont-divide-by x) (divide-by x))
--
Dan
www.prairienet.org/~dsb
Dan Bensen <··········@cyberspace.net> writes:
> So lispifying the C ?: operator would get you something like
> (? (is-zero x) (dont-divide-by x) (divide-by x))
But the C ?: operator is already present in Lisp. It's called IF
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
Ken Tilton wrote:
> Well, I kinda like the present-at-the-creation feeling I get from those
> inconsistencies. meanwhile, zero-p? Nah, we need to borrow back
> something else from scheme: zero?
I like '?' for predicates and '!' for destructive functions, too. Sure,
nconc works because we're all used to the name but something like
n-bad-idea or nbad-idea just kinda <pause> yuck.
On Boomtime, Chaos 2, 3173 YOLD, Damien Kick wrote:
>> Well, I kinda like the present-at-the-creation feeling I get from
>> those inconsistencies. meanwhile, zero-p? Nah, we need to borrow
>> back something else from scheme: zero?
>
> I like '?' for predicates and '!' for destructive functions, too.
> Sure, nconc works because we're all used to the name but something
> like n-bad-idea or nbad-idea just kinda <pause> yuck.
`n' doesn't stand for `destructive', it stands for `non-consing'
(i.e. not allocating new objects). It usually coincides with
`destructive', but is more precise (function can also cons or not cons
internally, without touching its arguments).
--
__ Maciek Pasternacki <·······@japhy.fnord.org> [ http://japhy.fnord.org/ ]
`| _ |_\ / { ...to keep from dying is not the same as ``to live''. }
,|{-}|}| }\/
\/ |____/ ( Frank Herbert ) -><-
"Pillsy" <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>> What is not open to question is the need for consistency.
>
> Also: why the heck is it ATOM and NULL instead of ATOMP and NULLP?
Because they were invented before the -P convention.
Ain't legacy nice?
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
ADVISORY: There is an extremely small but nonzero chance that,
through a process known as "tunneling," this product may
spontaneously disappear from its present location and reappear at
any random place in the universe, including your neighbor's
domicile. The manufacturer will not be responsible for any damages
or inconveniences that may result.
Ken Tilton wrote:
> They got this one wrong, didn't they? That should be bad-ideap. Just
> goes to show how fine the line between clever and stupid. Was there some
> concept of "hyphen momentum"?!
>
> Or maybe it should be bad-idea-p but also zero-p. yeah, probably better
> to delineate. What is not open to question is the need for consistency.
From CLtL2, intro to Chapter 6:
"By convention, the names of predicates usually end in the letter p
(which stands for ``predicate''). Common Lisp uses a uniform convention
in hyphenating names of predicates. If the name of the predicate is
formed by adding a p to an existing name, such as the name of a data
type, a hyphen is placed before the final p if and only if there is a
hyphen in the existing name. For example, number begets numberp but
standard-char begets standard-char-p. On the other hand, if the name of
a predicate is formed by adding a prefixing qualifier to the front of an
existing predicate name, the two names are joined with a hyphen and the
presence or absence of a hyphen before the final p is not changed. For
example, the predicate string-lessp has no hyphen before the p because
it is the string version of lessp (a MacLisp function that has been
renamed < in Common Lisp). The name string-less-p would incorrectly
imply that it is a predicate that tests for a kind of object called a
string-less, and the name stringlessp would connote a predicate that
tests whether something has no strings (is ``stringless'')!"
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
On 2007-01-02, Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> They got this one wrong, didn't they? That should be
>> bad-ideap. Just goes to show how fine the line between clever
>> and stupid. Was there some concept of "hyphen momentum"?!
>>
>> Or maybe it should be bad-idea-p but also zero-p. yeah,
>> probably better to delineate. What is not open to question is
>> the need for consistency.
>
> From CLtL2, intro to Chapter 6:
>
> "By convention, the names of predicates usually end in the
> letter p (which stands for ``predicate''). Common Lisp uses a
> uniform convention in hyphenating names of predicates. If the
> name of the predicate is formed by adding a p to an existing
> name, such as the name of a data type, a hyphen is placed
> before the final p if and only if there is a hyphen in the
> existing name. For example, number begets numberp but
> standard-char begets standard-char-p. On the other hand, if the
> name of a predicate is formed by adding a prefixing qualifier
> to the front of an existing predicate name, the two names are
> joined with a hyphen and the presence or absence of a hyphen
> before the final p is not changed. For example, the predicate
> string-lessp has no hyphen before the p because it is the
> string version of lessp (a MacLisp function that has been
> renamed < in Common Lisp). The name string-less-p would
> incorrectly imply that it is a predicate that tests for a kind
> of object called a string-less, and the name stringlessp would
> connote a predicate that tests whether something has no strings
> (is ``stringless'')!"
The greatness of a langue is proportional to the complexity of
its naming conventions. Well, it should be anyway.
--
Neil Cerutti
We couldn't beat... us. We couldn't even beat us. I was trying to think of
somebody bad, and I couldn't think of anybody else. Us. --Tim Legler
Neil Cerutti wrote:
> On 2007-01-02, Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> wrote:
>
>>Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>>They got this one wrong, didn't they? That should be
>>>bad-ideap. Just goes to show how fine the line between clever
>>>and stupid. Was there some concept of "hyphen momentum"?!
>>>
>>>Or maybe it should be bad-idea-p but also zero-p. yeah,
>>>probably better to delineate. What is not open to question is
>>>the need for consistency.
>>
>> From CLtL2, intro to Chapter 6:
>>
>>"By convention, the names of predicates usually end in the
>>letter p (which stands for ``predicate''). Common Lisp uses a
>>uniform convention in hyphenating names of predicates. If the
>>name of the predicate is formed by adding a p to an existing
>>name, such as the name of a data type, a hyphen is placed
>>before the final p if and only if there is a hyphen in the
>>existing name. For example, number begets numberp but
>>standard-char begets standard-char-p. On the other hand, if the
>>name of a predicate is formed by adding a prefixing qualifier
>>to the front of an existing predicate name, the two names are
>>joined with a hyphen and the presence or absence of a hyphen
>>before the final p is not changed. For example, the predicate
>>string-lessp has no hyphen before the p because it is the
>>string version of lessp (a MacLisp function that has been
>>renamed < in Common Lisp). The name string-less-p would
>>incorrectly imply that it is a predicate that tests for a kind
>>of object called a string-less, and the name stringlessp would
>>connote a predicate that tests whether something has no strings
>>(is ``stringless'')!"
Right. That is wrong. Observe that there is no justification for the
inconsistency. I am guessing the implicit justification is the
oft-hypothesized but never-observed phenomenon of "hyphen momentum". I
understand one of the planned experiments for the space station is to
see if that can be detected.
> The greatness of a langue is proportional to the complexity of
> its naming conventions. Well, it should be anyway.
>
Right. Always using -p or p or ? is less complex than conservation of
hyphen momentum laws.
Did you realize you were agreeing with me?
:)
kt
--
The Dalai Lama gets the same crap all the time.
-- Kenny Tilton on c.l.l when accused of immodesty
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> They got this one wrong, didn't they? That should be bad-ideap. Just
> goes to show how fine the line between clever and stupid. Was there some
> concept of "hyphen momentum"?!
>
>
> Or maybe it should be bad-idea-p but also zero-p. yeah, probably better
> to delineate. What is not open to question is the need for consistency.
Actually, according to the standard convention, the didn't get it wrong
at all. It should be bad-idea-p after all, along with zerop.
The short form of the convention is that single word identifiers get "p"
and multi-word identifiers get "-p". Adding the suffix never turns a
single-word identifier into a multi-word identifier.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
Thomas A. Russ wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>They got this one wrong, didn't they? That should be bad-ideap. Just
>>goes to show how fine the line between clever and stupid. Was there some
>>concept of "hyphen momentum"?!
>>
>>
>>Or maybe it should be bad-idea-p but also zero-p. yeah, probably better
>>to delineate. What is not open to question is the need for consistency.
>
>
> Actually, according to the standard convention,....
Well bless the bozone* layer, I need an autoresponder for you clowns
(but I /am/ looking forward to the next poster to point out the convention).
:)
ken
* 1. Bozone (n.) The substance surrounding stupid people that stops
bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows
little sign of breaking down in the near future.
-- One of the Washington Post Style Invitational winners
--
The Dalai Lama gets the same crap all the time.
-- Kenny Tilton on c.l.l when accused of immodesty
Ken Tilton ha escrito:
> * 1. Bozone (n.) The substance surrounding stupid people that stops
> bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows
> little sign of breaking down in the near future.
> -- One of the Washington Post Style Invitational winners
Yes, you agree with me, there is a lot of 'bozone' surrounding many
lispers that stops bright ideas from penetrating on LISP.
"Juan R." <··············@canonicalscience.com> writes:
> Yes, you agree with me, there is a lot of 'bozone' surrounding many
> lispers that stops bright ideas from penetrating on LISP.
>
I'd give this about a 6.2 on the ilias scale.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Hitler has slain his millions, and Stalin his ten millions.
Fred Gilham wrote:
>
> "Juan R." <··············@canonicalscience.com> writes:
>
>
>>Yes, you agree with me, there is a lot of 'bozone' surrounding many
>>lispers that stops bright ideas from penetrating on LISP.
>>
>
>
> I'd give this about a 6.2 on the ilias scale.
>
Apples/oranges, don't you think? Ilias was sincere, not really trolling.
Juan R is just trying to hook his lame little wagon to Lisp's glory
(suggesting feed be withheld). For what else are killfiles?
my2, kzo
--
The Dalai Lama gets the same crap all the time.
-- Kenny Tilton on c.l.l when accused of immodesty
Ken Tilton ha escrito:
> Apples/oranges, don't you think? Ilias was sincere, not really trolling.
> Juan R is just trying to hook his lame little wagon to Lisp's glory
> (suggesting feed be withheld). For what else are killfiles?
>
Glory, built on selfish principles, is shame and guilt.
----------- William Cowper
On 2007-01-04 22:28:03 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>> Actually, according to the standard convention,....
>
> Well bless the bozone* layer, I need an autoresponder for you clowns
> (but I /am/ looking forward to the next poster to point out the
> convention).
If only the rest of us were as bright as you think you are.
Novus
Novus <·····@ngoqde.org> wrote:
+---------------
| Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
| >> Actually, according to the standard convention,....
| >
| > Well bless the bozone* layer, I need an autoresponder for you clowns
| > (but I /am/ looking forward to the next poster to point out the
| > convention).
|
| If only the rest of us were as bright as you think you are.
+---------------
I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that Ken is simply
pointing out an obvious ambiguity in the convention -- that it really
depends on the etymological evolution of the terms as to which variant
is "correct". That is, if the first thing that happened eons ago was
that someone invented a predicate that asked "Is this thingy here in
my hand an idea?", then a proper name for that might have been IDEAP.
Then if *later* someone came up with a variant which referred to bad
ideas, then the proper spelling of the variant would be BAD-IDEAP.
But on the other hand, if in the beginning of time the first reference
was to a BAD-IDEA type, than the later creation of a predicate to
inquire as to whether an object was of that type would properly be
spelled BAD-IDEA-P.
That is, for some predicates you cannot unambiguously determine
a single "correct" spelling without knowing the historical usage
of its subcomponent names. [And maybe not even then...]
-Rob
p.s. I seem to recall that it was this notion that the path
integrals of various paths between the same two points might be
different -- and indeed some of them definable in closed form and
some not(!) -- that led to the development of that branch of
mathematics that was eventually called "catastrophe theory"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory>.
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Rob Warnock wrote:
> Novus <·····@ngoqde.org> wrote:
> +---------------
> | Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> | >> Actually, according to the standard convention,....
> | >
> | > Well bless the bozone* layer, I need an autoresponder for you clowns
> | > (but I /am/ looking forward to the next poster to point out the
> | > convention).
> |
> | If only the rest of us were as bright as you think you are.
> +---------------
>
> I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that Ken is simply
> pointing out an obvious ambiguity in the convention -- that it really
> depends on the etymological evolution of the terms as to which variant
> is "correct". That is, if the first thing that happened eons ago was
> that someone invented a predicate that asked "Is this thingy here in
> my hand an idea?", then a proper name for that might have been IDEAP.
> Then if *later* someone came up with a variant which referred to bad
> ideas, then the proper spelling of the variant would be BAD-IDEAP.
> But on the other hand, if in the beginning of time the first reference
> was to a BAD-IDEA type, than the later creation of a predicate to
> inquire as to whether an object was of that type would properly be
> spelled BAD-IDEA-P.
And then when someone decided to test for ideaness they would be
expected to parallel bad-idea-p with idea-p? Intriguing, not what I was
thinking, and given the standard lack of interest in consistency people
keep quoting to me I would expect ideap to fit right in even with a
bad-idea-p toehold.
Lot's of things are being missed. "We got this wrong" implies "we the
community got this wrong" meaning "I think the convention is wrong."
That was missed. Another thing being missed is that I have written about
300kloc Lisp over eleven years so it's a tad silly to quote me the
convention. Another thing being missed is folks (innocently enough) not
reading the whole thread, where they would discover I pointed all this
out to the first bozone molecule that did quote me the convention. Also
being missed is how much I enjoyed the Washington Post piece and my
eagerness to use one of the coinages. Further missed is my longstanding
obsession with The Rectifcation of Names (thx to the reknowned JS for
that bit of Confucianism), which may not be apparent from my c.l.l opus
but which will be on the Kenny Final Exam so add it to your notes if it
is not already there.
>
> That is, for some predicates you cannot unambiguously determine
> a single "correct" spelling without knowing the historical usage
> of its subcomponent names. [And maybe not even then...]
I think we have a precedent. In English, that is. Possessives of
singluar nouns are formed by adding apostrophe ess, even if the singular
noun ends in ess: it's BLISS's inventors at CMU, not BLISS' inventors.
Most native english speakers get this wrong, thinking the plural rule
(just an apostrope) applies because lotsa plurals end in ess. bzzzt.
Likewise, predicate names should always be formed the same way, as would
a robot or code-writing algorithm.
Meanwhile, note the peloria*:
nconc
nstring-capitalize
Q-frickin-ED, and fortunately Team Bozone has no standard justification
of this inconsistent consistency to point out to me every other flame.
kenny
* Unusual regularity in the form of a flower that is normally irregular.
-- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peloria
--
The Dalai Lama gets the same crap all the time.
-- Kenny Tilton on c.l.l when accused of immodesty
On 2007-01-05 03:21:16 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> Further missed is my longstanding obsession with The Rectifcation of
> Names (thx to the reknowned JS for that bit of Confucianism), which may
> not be apparent from my c.l.l opus but which will be on the Kenny Final
> Exam so add it to your notes if it is not already there.
(can-be-named-p *tao*)
=> nil
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2007-01-05 03:21:16 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Further missed is my longstanding obsession with The Rectifcation of
>> Names (thx to the reknowned JS for that bit of Confucianism), which
>> may not be apparent from my c.l.l opus but which will be on the Kenny
>> Final Exam so add it to your notes if it is not already there.
>
>
> (can-be-named-p *tao*)
>
> => nil
>
I had:
(taop #:tao) => nil
kzo
--
The Dalai Lama gets the same crap all the time.
-- Kenny Tilton on c.l.l when accused of immodesty
On 2007-01-05 10:37:49 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> I had:
>
> (taop #:tao) => nil
Just the same, the rectification of names is an odd obsession for a
professed buddhist ;^)
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2007-01-05 10:37:49 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> I had:
>>
>> (taop #:tao) => nil
>
>
> Just the same, the rectification of names is an odd obsession for a
> professed buddhist ;^)
>
a) Professed? Our Buddha nature is the only reality and thus
ineluctable. All else is illusion and ignorance, aka samsara.
b) Siding with Mom, are we? Careful, my gentle retort made witnesses
gasp and left her speechless.
kz
--
The Dalai Lama gets the same crap all the time.
-- Kenny Tilton on c.l.l when accused of immodesty
On 2007-01-06 01:14:09 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> a) Professed? Our Buddha nature is the only reality and thus
> ineluctable. All else is illusion and ignorance, aka samsara.
The rectification of names is a form of grasping, and so smells a lot
like samsara - I think Lao Tze and Shakespeare had the last word on
names.
Even one claiming bodhi wraparound and merely enjoying a playful
indulgence in the samsara of names wouldn't be "obsessed" with their
rectification. In any event, I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks
your posts lack the tenor of true bodhicitta. ;^)
>
> b) Siding with Mom, are we? Careful, my gentle retort made witnesses
> gasp and left her speechless.
I probably shock less easily than Mom & co.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2007-01-06 01:14:09 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> a) Professed? Our Buddha nature is the only reality and thus
>> ineluctable. All else is illusion and ignorance, aka samsara.
>
>
> The rectification of names is a form of grasping, and so smells a lot
> like samsara - I think Lao Tze and Shakespeare had the last word on names.
I am an American, we go by the Karate Kid movies.
>
> Even one claiming bodhi wraparound and merely enjoying a playful
> indulgence in the samsara of names wouldn't be "obsessed" with their
> rectification. In any event, I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks
> your posts lack the tenor of true bodhicitta. ;^)
I love it. We had one of these Invocations of the Anonymous Agreement
Posses a few months ago. I am sure I am not the only one wondering why
you are afraid to confront me alone.
>
>>
>> b) Siding with Mom, are we? Careful, my gentle retort made witnesses
>> gasp and left her speechless.
>
> I probably shock less easily than Mom & co.
>
You did not know Mom.
kzo
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
>> On 2007-01-06 01:14:09 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> a) Professed? Our Buddha nature is the only reality and thus
>>> ineluctable. All else is illusion and ignorance, aka samsara.
>>
>>
>>
>> The rectification of names is a form of grasping, and so smells a lot
>> like samsara - I think Lao Tze and Shakespeare had the last word on
>> names.
>
>
> I am an American, we go by the Karate Kid movies.
(KK3 with Hilary Swank has the answer you seek, the scene where she
attacks Mr. Miyagi for being inconsistent.)
kt
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>>
>>> On 2007-01-06 01:14:09 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> a) Professed? Our Buddha nature is the only reality and thus
>>>> ineluctable. All else is illusion and ignorance, aka samsara.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The rectification of names is a form of grasping, and so smells a lot
>>> like samsara - I think Lao Tze and Shakespeare had the last word on
>>> names.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am an American, we go by the Karate Kid movies.
>
>
> (KK3 with Hilary Swank has the answer you seek, the scene where she
> attacks Mr. Miyagi for being inconsistent.)
Oops, the one after that, "The Next Karate Kid"
kt
On 2007-01-06 10:40:18 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> I am an American, we go by the Karate Kid movies.
I am an American too. I still think that Shakespeare and Lao Tze are
more insightful than the screenwriter(s) of the Karate Kid movies. ;^)
>
>>
>> Even one claiming bodhi wraparound and merely enjoying a playful
>> indulgence in the samsara of names wouldn't be "obsessed" with their
>> rectification. In any event, I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks
>> your posts lack the tenor of true bodhicitta. ;^)
>
> I love it. We had one of these Invocations of the Anonymous Agreement
> Posses a few months ago. I am sure I am not the only one wondering why
> you are afraid to confront me alone.
I think your posts lack the tenor of true bodhicitta. We can safely
leave others out of this one.
>
>>
>>>
>>> b) Siding with Mom, are we? Careful, my gentle retort made witnesses
>>> gasp and left her speechless.
>>
>> I probably shock less easily than Mom & co.
>>
>
> You did not know Mom.
I remain unshocked nevertheless.
Bottom line, it is not a mere inconsistency - the rectification of
names is an idea fundamentally opposed to taoism and buddhism.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> Bottom line, it is not a mere inconsistency - the rectification of names
> is an idea fundamentally opposed to taoism and buddhism.
>
How about programming?
kt
--
The Dalai Lama gets the same crap all the time.
-- Kenny Tilton on c.l.l when accused of immodesty
On 2007-01-06 16:01:10 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Bottom line, it is not a mere inconsistency - the rectification of
>> names is an idea fundamentally opposed to taoism and buddhism.
>>
>
> How about programming?
Common lisp has packages, macros, etc. in part so that there need be no
community-wide rectification of names. The rectification of names is a
"There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it"
idea, more at home in python than common lisp.
In a lesser language one might need the rectification of names to
maintain order. In common lisp just arrange things as it suits you
without requiring the entire community to come along for the ride.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2007-01-06 16:01:10 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>>
>>> Bottom line, it is not a mere inconsistency - the rectification of
>>> names is an idea fundamentally opposed to taoism and buddhism.
>>>
>>
>> How about programming?
>
>
> Common lisp has packages, macros, etc. in part so that there need be no
> community-wide rectification of names. The rectification of names is a
> "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it"
> idea, more at home in python than common lisp.
>
> In a lesser language one might need the rectification of names to
> maintain order. In common lisp just arrange things as it suits you
> without requiring the entire community to come along for the ride.
>
Nice speech, but the simple question is whether it is useful to name
predicates consistently. If not, this discussion is not for you, because
my only concern is, having decided to have a convention, should that
convention specialize into two cases?
The existing convention has two cases, justified by hyphen inertia (I
erred calling it momentum -- a name at hyphen rest coninues at hyphen
rest when predicatized, while a name in hyphen motion continues in
hyphen motion -- that's inertia, right?) and apparently (I now see)
hyphen inertia has direction (left-to-right, which is how we get
nstring-capitalize instead of n-string-capitalize when adding the n
(another dandy convention, for my money).
I have a call into FermiLab to see if they can confirm, have not heard
back yet.
kt
--
The Dalai Lama gets the same crap all the time.
-- Kenny Tilton on c.l.l when accused of immodesty
Ken Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>> On 2007-01-06 16:01:10 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>>> Bottom line, it is not a mere inconsistency - the rectification of
>>>> names is an idea fundamentally opposed to taoism and buddhism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How about programming?
>>
>>
>> Common lisp has packages, macros, etc. in part so that there need be
>> no community-wide rectification of names. The rectification of names
>> is a "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to
>> do it" idea, more at home in python than common lisp.
>>
>> In a lesser language one might need the rectification of names to
>> maintain order. In common lisp just arrange things as it suits you
>> without requiring the entire community to come along for the ride.
>
> Nice speech, but the simple question is whether it is useful to name
> predicates consistently. If not, this discussion is not for you, because
> my only concern is, having decided to have a convention, should that
> convention specialize into two cases?
>
> The existing convention has two cases, justified by hyphen inertia (I
> erred calling it momentum -- a name at hyphen rest coninues at hyphen
> rest when predicatized, while a name in hyphen motion continues in
> hyphen motion -- that's inertia, right?) and apparently (I now see)
> hyphen inertia has direction (left-to-right, which is how we get
> nstring-capitalize instead of n-string-capitalize when adding the n
> (another dandy convention, for my money).
There are a lot more than two cases for predicates in Common Lisp.
- atom, null don't end in p for historical reasons.
- member, find, etc., don't end in p because they do not only return a
generalized boolean, but actually a value that you can use further.
- eq, eql, equal don't end in p although they don't return values that
can be used further. However, there is still equalp.
- gethash returns a second value for indicating success or failure, so
is at least partially a predicate, but doesn't end in p.
There are probably more.
The desire to make such naming conventions more consistent is one of the
forces that ultimately lead to such things as making predicates end in
?, making operators with side effects end in !, turning booleans into
strictly separate datatypes with #t and #f as the only proper elements
of that type, turning the language into a Lisp-1, etc. pp., and
ultimately moving towards a language that is less convenient to use.
Heck, why don't we add naming conventions for all operators that deal
with numbers, that directly or indirectly call themselves, that are
guaranteed to terminate, that may not terminate, that can be implemented
in less than five lines of code, that were implemented on weekends, and
so on, and so forth. There are probably thousands of pieces of
information that we could encode with naming conventions....
Ah, no, wait. Naming conventions should actually be useful. I forgot.
What's the use of a naming convention for predicates again?
;)
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
> Ah, no, wait. Naming conventions should actually be useful. I forgot.
>
> What's the use of a naming convention for predicates again?
Really this is a good question. A lot of people miss that
DIGIT-CHAR-P actually returns the numerical value corresponding to the
character, because it ends in -P.
Instead of DIGIT-CHAR <-> DIGIT-CHAR-P
we should have DIGIT-CHAR <-> CHAR-DIGIT ;-)
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
THIS IS A 100% MATTER PRODUCT: In the unlikely event that this
merchandise should contact antimatter in any form, a catastrophic
explosion will result.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> Common lisp has packages, macros, etc. in part so that there need be
> no community-wide rectification of names.
just to air a pent-up whine:
The occasional package-name clash has mildly inconvenienced me.
OpenGL bindings are the example that springs to mind. 'gl' is of course
an obvious choice of package name for an opengl binding, but
using 'com.example.opengl' or whatever and allowing users (of the
binding -i.e. downstream developers) to pick a nickname of 'gl' if they
want it is friendlier (IIRC that's something like what cl-opengl now
does, but portable-clx and cl-sdl both grab 'gl')
On 2007-01-05, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That is, for some predicates you cannot unambiguously
>> determine a single "correct" spelling without knowing the
>> historical usage of its subcomponent names. [And maybe not
>> even then...]
>
> I think we have a precedent. In English, that is. Possessives
> of singluar nouns are formed by adding apostrophe ess, even if
> the singular noun ends in ess: it's BLISS's inventors at CMU,
> not BLISS' inventors.
Strunk and White agree with you, but not all publishers's style
guides do.
> Most native english speakers get this wrong, thinking the
> plural rule (just an apostrope) applies because lotsa plurals
> end in ess. bzzzt.
A usable English syntax could do away with apostrophes. Theyre a
vestigial bump on written English.
> Meanwhile, note the peloria*:
>
> nconc
> nstring-capitalize
>
> Q-frickin-ED, and fortunately Team Bozone has no standard justification
> of this inconsistent consistency to point out to me every other flame.
>
> kenny
>
> * Unusual regularity in the form of a flower that is normally irregular.
> -- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peloria
Cool word! Seen the Phrontistery? http://phrontistery.info/
--
Neil Cerutti
The concert held in Fellowship Hall was a great success. Special thanks are
due to the minister's daughter, who labored the whole evening at the piano,
which as usual fell upon her. --Church Bulletin Blooper
Neil Cerutti wrote:
> On 2007-01-05, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>That is, for some predicates you cannot unambiguously
>>>determine a single "correct" spelling without knowing the
>>>historical usage of its subcomponent names. [And maybe not
>>>even then...]
>>
>>I think we have a precedent. In English, that is. Possessives
>>of singluar nouns are formed by adding apostrophe ess, even if
>>the singular noun ends in ess: it's BLISS's inventors at CMU,
>>not BLISS' inventors.
>
>
> Strunk and White agree with you, but not all publishers's style
> guides do.
Sounds like "The Bible agrees with you, but not the Playboy Advisor."
Anyway, an analogy exists only to communicate, not for authority: even
singular possessive formation has its exceptions.
>
>
>>Most native english speakers get this wrong, thinking the
>>plural rule (just an apostrope) applies because lotsa plurals
>>end in ess. bzzzt.
>
>
> A usable English syntax could do away with apostrophes. Theyre a
> vestigial bump on written English.
Modernist! I suppose next we'll be doing away with CAR and CDR.
>
>
>>Meanwhile, note the peloria*:
>>
>> nconc
>> nstring-capitalize
>>
>>Q-frickin-ED, and fortunately Team Bozone has no standard justification
>>of this inconsistent consistency to point out to me every other flame.
>>
>>kenny
>>
>>* Unusual regularity in the form of a flower that is normally irregular.
>> -- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peloria
>
>
> Cool word! Seen the Phrontistery? http://phrontistery.info/
Getting harder to find every year. I like to think that the author of
the definition was chewing the scenery deliberately with the redundant
opening "Unusual".
Weird, that site seems not to have a "Search" mechanism. How is that
possible? Anyway, I was disappointed to see peloria had not made the
favorites list (http://phrontistery.info/favourite.html). Then again,
cool /meaning/ is not a selection criterion:
1. it has to be pretty rare (less than five occurrences per 1
million words of text);
2. it should be very euphonious (it has to sound good);
3. it should be of use in a modern context, if not necessarily
usable on a daily basis;
4. it should not have a simple one-word synonym;
5. it should not be so long and complex to be useless in conversation.
...and indeed the definitions themselves are plain. Phrontistery itself
is pretty good, except my stunted development has me just wanting to put
that on the door to the loo.
kzo
--
The Dalai Lama gets the same crap all the time.
-- Kenny Tilton on c.l.l when accused of immodesty
Ken Tilton wrote:
>>
>>> Meanwhile, note the peloria*:
>>>
>>> nconc
>>> nstring-capitalize
>>>
>>> Q-frickin-ED, and fortunately Team Bozone has no standard
>>> justification of this inconsistent consistency to point out to me
>>> every other flame.
>>>
>>> kenny
>>>
>>> * Unusual regularity in the form of a flower that is normally irregular.
>>> -- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/peloria
Ah, much better, via http://www.onelook.com/?w=peloria&ls=a :
"(n.) Abnormal regularity; the state of certain flowers, which, being
naturally irregular, have become regular through a symmetrical
repetition of the special irregularity."
Reminds me of how hard it is to find tiling textures that do not look
like tiling.
Meanwhile, wow, lookit the etymology: [NL., from Gr. monstrous.]
kt
--
The Dalai Lama gets the same crap all the time.
-- Kenny Tilton on c.l.l when accused of immodesty
On 2007-01-05, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Neil Cerutti wrote:
>> On 2007-01-05, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>That is, for some predicates you cannot unambiguously
>>>>determine a single "correct" spelling without knowing the
>>>>historical usage of its subcomponent names. [And maybe not
>>>>even then...]
>>>
>>>I think we have a precedent. In English, that is. Possessives
>>>of singluar nouns are formed by adding apostrophe ess, even if
>>>the singular noun ends in ess: it's BLISS's inventors at CMU,
>>>not BLISS' inventors.
>>
>>
>> Strunk and White agree with you, but not all publishers's
>> style guides do.
>
> Sounds like "The Bible agrees with you, but not the Playboy
> Advisor." Anyway, an analogy exists only to communicate, not
> for authority: even singular possessive formation has its
> exceptions.
I merely wanted to suggest that the serial s (if that's what its
called) should be included or omitted based on your audience.
There's no universal agreement on its use. Of course, "I was following
Strunk & White" is a good defense.
>>>Most native english speakers get this wrong, thinking the
>>>plural rule (just an apostrope) applies because lotsa plurals
>>>end in ess. bzzzt.
>>
>> A usable English syntax could do away with apostrophes. Theyre a
>> vestigial bump on written English.
>
> Modernist! I suppose next we'll be doing away with CAR and CDR.
But then we wouldn't (coincidentally?) be able to say horrible
things like CDDAR and CADDR. I think more mini-mini-languages
should be embedded in symbols.
>> Cool word! Seen the Phrontistery? http://phrontistery.info/
>
> Getting harder to find every year. I like to think that the
> author of the definition was chewing the scenery deliberately
> with the redundant opening "Unusual".
>
> Weird, that site seems not to have a "Search" mechanism. How is
> that possible? Anyway, I was disappointed to see peloria had
> not made the favorites list
> (http://phrontistery.info/favourite.html). Then again, cool
> /meaning/ is not a selection criterion:
>
> 1. it has to be pretty rare (less than five occurrences per 1
> million words of text);
> 2. it should be very euphonious (it has to sound good);
> 3. it should be of use in a modern context, if not necessarily
> usable on a daily basis;
> 4. it should not have a simple one-word synonym;
> 5. it should not be so long and complex to be useless in conversation.
>
> ...and indeed the definitions themselves are plain.
> Phrontistery itself is pretty good, except my stunted
> development has me just wanting to put that on the door to the
> loo.
Heh, heh. The lack of "interesting meaning" as a criterion makes
it a less interesting resource, especially for browsing.
But peloria seems to meet the other criteria.
--
Neil Cerutti
I don't know what to expect right now, but we as players have to do what we've
got to do to make sure that the pot is spread equally. --Jim Jackson
Neil Cerutti wrote:
> On 2007-01-05, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Neil Cerutti wrote:
>>
>>>On 2007-01-05, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>That is, for some predicates you cannot unambiguously
>>>>>determine a single "correct" spelling without knowing the
>>>>>historical usage of its subcomponent names. [And maybe not
>>>>>even then...]
>>>>
>>>>I think we have a precedent. In English, that is. Possessives
>>>>of singluar nouns are formed by adding apostrophe ess, even if
>>>>the singular noun ends in ess: it's BLISS's inventors at CMU,
>>>>not BLISS' inventors.
>>>
>>>
>>>Strunk and White agree with you, but not all publishers's
>>>style guides do.
>>
>>Sounds like "The Bible agrees with you, but not the Playboy
>>Advisor." Anyway, an analogy exists only to communicate, not
>>for authority: even singular possessive formation has its
>>exceptions.
>
>
> I merely wanted to suggest that the serial s (if that's what its
> called) should be included or omitted based on your audience.
Like using "it was me" instead of "it was I" to confess to taking the
last beer at a barbecue in a trailer park? Indeed.
kt
Novus wrote:
> On 2007-01-04 22:28:03 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
>>> Actually, according to the standard convention,....
>>
>>
>> Well bless the bozone* layer, I need an autoresponder for you clowns
>> (but I /am/ looking forward to the next poster to point out the
>> convention).
>
>
> If only the rest of us were as bright as you think you are.
Aim higher. Wish you were as bright as me.
Some entity, AKA Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com>,
wrote this mindboggling stuff:
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
> Novus wrote:
> > On 2007-01-04 22:28:03 -0500, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> >
> >>> Actually, according to the standard convention,....
> >>
> >>
> >> Well bless the bozone* layer, I need an autoresponder for you
> >> clowns (but I /am/ looking forward to the next poster to point out
> >> the convention).
> > If only the rest of us were as bright as you think you are.
>
> Aim higher. Wish you were as bright as me.
One should stop playing with matches then ... ;-))
Cor
--
The biggest problem LISP has is that it does not apeal to dumb people
If this failed to satisfy you try reading the HyperSpec or woman frig
(defvar MyComputer '((OS . "GNU/Emacs") (IPL . "GNU/Linux")))
Read the policy before mailing http://www.clsnet.nl/mail.html