Hi everybody
I'm starting learning common lisp by myself using online book
"pratical common lisp" by Peter Seibel...the book suggests the use of
'lisp in a box' for the exercises...but i never use emacs and it's
about an hour i'm trying to digit the "~" symbol on my italian
keyboard (usually i have to press ALT + 1 2 6 on bloc num keys).
Now i found a way of copy it out of emacs and paste it inside. But
it's not so easy to do it everytime...as you can imagine...i try with
emacs documentation but i can't find it.
can you help me please?
Do you have any other suggestions for me?is there in the net some
forum for Common lisp users?
I too use EMACS, but the LispWorks Personal IDE might be a better choice
for you, if it's getting too hard for you. Set up with the Edi Weitz
startup pack it's just awesome.
And if you are on Win32 then there is also the wonderful (and quite
inexpensive) CormanLisp, and the powerful AllegroCL (Personal edition).
··············@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi everybody
>
> I'm starting learning common lisp by myself using online book
> "pratical common lisp" by Peter Seibel...the book suggests the use of
> 'lisp in a box' for the exercises...but i never use emacs and it's
> about an hour i'm trying to digit the "~" symbol on my italian
> keyboard (usually i have to press ALT + 1 2 6 on bloc num keys).
>
> Now i found a way of copy it out of emacs and paste it inside. But
> it's not so easy to do it everytime...as you can imagine...i try with
> emacs documentation but i can't find it.
>
> can you help me please?
>
> Do you have any other suggestions for me?is there in the net some
> forum for Common lisp users?
On 16 Ott, 01:35, "Dimiter \"malkia\" Stanev" <······@mac.com> wrote:
> I too use EMACS, but the LispWorks Personal IDE might be a better choice
> for you, if it's getting too hard for you. Set up with the Edi Weitz
> startup pack it's just awesome.
>
> And if you are on Win32 then there is also the wonderful (and quite
> inexpensive) CormanLisp, and the powerful AllegroCL (Personal edition).
>
don't you think it would be a problem following the seibel's book?it
says that every example is made in lisp in a box
On 16 Ott, 01:35, "Dimiter \"malkia\" Stanev" <······@mac.com> wrote:
> I too use EMACS, but the LispWorks Personal IDE might be a better choice
> for you, if it's getting too hard for you. Set up with the Edi Weitz
> startup pack it's just awesome.
>
> And if you are on Win32 then there is also the wonderful (and quite
> inexpensive) CormanLisp, and the powerful AllegroCL (Personal edition).
>
> ··············@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi everybody
>
> > I'm starting learning common lisp by myself using online book
> > "pratical common lisp" by Peter Seibel...the book suggests the use of
> > 'lisp in a box' for the exercises...but i never use emacs and it's
> > about an hour i'm trying to digit the "~" symbol on my italian
> > keyboard (usually i have to press ALT + 1 2 6 on bloc num keys).
>
> > Now i found a way of copy it out of emacs and paste it inside. But
> > it's not so easy to do it everytime...as you can imagine...i try with
> > emacs documentation but i can't find it.
>
> > can you help me please?
>
> > Do you have any other suggestions for me?is there in the net some
> > forum for Common lisp users?
>
>
It's not a problem to change my lisp???
the book eems to use 'lisp in a box' for all the examples...
··············@gmail.com writes:
> It's not a problem to change my lisp???
> the book eems to use 'lisp in a box' for all the examples...
It shouldn't be. The examples are all Common Lisp. The only things
that might be different (I haven't read the book), is the way you would
interact with the lisp system. For example how you evaluate forms that
you type.
Of course, another alternative would be to use emacs and re-map one of
the keys to insert the tilde character. Perhaps the section character
would be a candidate? The one above the � character.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
··············@gmail.com wrote:
> It's not a problem to change my lisp???
No, Lisp is a standardized language, and Peter was very good about
knowing where implementations varied (as allowed by the standard).
> the book eems to use 'lisp in a box' for all the examples...
That was just to quickly give you a working environment. LW and ACL free
trials do the same, so now you are up and running and can do PCL exercises.
kt
On Oct 15, 4:30 pm, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi everybody
>
> I'm starting learning common lisp by myself using online book
> "pratical common lisp" by Peter Seibel...the book suggests the use of
> 'lisp in a box' for the exercises...but i never use emacs and it's
> about an hour i'm trying to digit the "~" symbol on my italian
> keyboard (usually i have to press ALT + 1 2 6 on bloc num keys).
>
> Now i found a way of copy it out of emacs and paste it inside. But
> it's not so easy to do it everytime...as you can imagine...i try with
> emacs documentation but i can't find it.
>
> can you help me please?
>
> Do you have any other suggestions for me?is there in the net some
> forum for Common lisp users?
You can read a practical emacs tutorial, at:
http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs.html
much easier than the emacs manual.
if your keyboard doesn't have the “~” symbol, you can bind a key to
insert that in emacs. Here's a example:
; press the “-” key on the keypad to insert “~”
(global-set-key (kbd "<kp-subtract>") "~")
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On 16 Oct, 00:30, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm starting learning common lisp by myself using online book
> Do you have any other suggestions for me?is there in the net some
> forum for Common lisp users?
This doesn't help with the keyboard issue but for an editor you could
also try:
ABLE: http://phil.nullable.eu/ (if you like simple)
CUSP: http://bitfauna.com/projects/cusp/ (if you like Eclipse)
Limp: http://mikael.jansson.be/hacking/limp (if you like Vim)
For a forum, there is LispForum (http://www.lispforum.com/) but cll is
well worth reading too.
--
Phil
http://phil.nullable.eu/
thanks everybody for you answers
I change 'lisp in a box' and now i'm using lispworks personal edition
5.1.1 (i thought it was not so smart to learn emacs while i have to
learn common lisp!!)
It's ok: the only problem is when you need to exit and re-open it (i
think every 5 hours it stays active...).
Now i'm reading capter 3 of "pratical common lisp": i really hope
chapter 2 is only a "whirlwind tour" as the author calls it, because
if things are going to get even more complicated it's not my kind of
book!!!!!!!!!
thanks!
··············@gmail.com writes:
> thanks everybody for you answers
>
> I change 'lisp in a box' and now i'm using lispworks personal edition
> 5.1.1 (i thought it was not so smart to learn emacs while i have to
> learn common lisp!!)
>
> It's ok: the only problem is when you need to exit and re-open it (i
> think every 5 hours it stays active...).
>
> Now i'm reading capter 3 of "pratical common lisp": i really hope
> chapter 2 is only a "whirlwind tour" as the author calls it, because
> if things are going to get even more complicated it's not my kind of
> book!!!!!!!!!
It assumes you already know programming.
If you want an easier introduction, try:
GENTLE = Common Lisp: A Gentle Introduction to Symbolic Computation
http://www-cgi.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/dst/www/LispBook/index.html
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/LispBook/
or:
CLAIA = "COMMON LISP: An Interactive Approach"
by Stuart C. Shapiro:
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~shapiro/Commonlisp/
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Nobody can fix the economy. Nobody can be trusted with their finger
on the button. Nobody's perfect. VOTE FOR NOBODY.
i have some rudimental knowledge in programming...i come from audio
world and up to now i use max/msp (maybe you know it), csound, a
little supercollider...but it's the first time alone with a general
porpouse programming language...now i try go on with PCL (anyway it's
a good book to read)...then i'll shift to other...
thank!
··············@gmail.com wrote:
> i have some rudimental knowledge in programming...i come from audio
> world and up to now i use max/msp (maybe you know it), csound, a
> little supercollider...
Have you seen?: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/clm/
There are other options, tho nothing real-time like SC.
> ...but it's the first time alone with a general
> porpouse programming language...now i try go on with PCL (anyway it's
> a good book to read)...then i'll shift to other...
It's a good book with fun practical examples yet comprehensive on the
language itself.
What did you find daunting? The early practicals are deliberately
substantial to show off the power of Lisp to get a lot done with a
little code, if that is the problem.
kzo
yes!!! i have heard about CLM (but know nothing...it doesn't let me go
and see the CL/CLM manual!)...
i've also used Ircam's Open Music which is a graphical version of lisp
+ some musical editors and tools...this is the true reason why i want
to learn lisp: open music is great but with lot of bugs and not well
documented and all the people who use it generally they've studied
common lisp...i want also to use cl with csound to generate text files
for scores (and also orchestras)...
I find daunting the moment in second chapter when the author starts to
talks about mapcar in the function 'where'(pag. 32-33...chapter
3)...and then till the end of chapter i found all the things a little
bit too much scaring...ok i have already listen talking about "mapcar"
or "lambda" but i need more instruments to learn how to use BY MYLSELF
to create my little programs...
Now i'm reading chapter 4 and all the things seem more "step by
step"...
··············@gmail.com writes:
> I find daunting the moment in second chapter when the author starts to
> talks about mapcar in the function 'where'(pag. 32-33...chapter
> 3)...and then till the end of chapter i found all the things a little
> bit too much scaring...ok i have already listen talking about "mapcar"
> or "lambda" but i need more instruments to learn how to use BY MYLSELF
> to create my little programs...
>
> Now i'm reading chapter 4 and all the things seem more "step by
> step"...
OK. If that still ends up being a bit too quick and scary, you might
want to look at some more tutorial-oriented books. I think that PCL
assumes some previous programming experience on the part of the user.
You might try looking at some of the other choices at
http://alu.org/alu/res-lisp-education
one that may work well is Touretzky's "Common Lisp: A Gentle Introduction..."
http://www-cgi.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/dst/www/LispBook/index.html
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
··············@gmail.com wrote:
> yes!!! i have heard about CLM (but know nothing...it doesn't let me go
> and see the CL/CLM manual!)...
>
> i've also used Ircam's Open Music which is a graphical version of lisp
> + some musical editors and tools...this is the true reason why i want
> to learn lisp: open music is great but with lot of bugs and not well
> documented and all the people who use it generally they've studied
> common lisp...i want also to use cl with csound to generate text files
> for scores (and also orchestras)...
How about a Lisp interface to Supercollider? I want to do real-time
sound so I can have my Cells bleeping and honking as they fire, that
would be so cool.
>
> I find daunting the moment in second chapter when the author starts to
> talks about mapcar in the function 'where'(pag. 32-33...chapter
> 3)...and then till the end of chapter i found all the things a little
> bit too much scaring...
You mean:
(defun where (&key title artist rating (ripped nil ripped-p))
#'(lambda (cd)
(and
(if title (equal (getf cd :title) title) t)
(if artist (equal (getf cd :artist) artist) t)
(if rating (equal (getf cd :rating) rating) t)
(if ripped-p (equal (getf cd :ripped) ripped) t))))
Yeah, in this case the author is using brown-belt* techniques to sell
the reader on CL and motivate you to learn it. ie, Tthat code is to be
read and inspired by so it will be scary to a noob wondering "Am I
supposed to be able to understand this? Write this?!!!".
> ...ok i have already listen talking about "mapcar"
> or "lambda" but i need more instruments to learn how to use BY MYLSELF
> to create my little programs...
Right.
>
> Now i'm reading chapter 4 and all the things seem more "step by
> step"...
Awesome.
kxo
> From: Kenny <·········@gmail.com>
> (defun where (&key title artist rating (ripped nil ripped-p))
> #'(lambda (cd)
> (and
> (if title (equal (getf cd :title) title) t)
> (if artist (equal (getf cd :artist) artist) t)
> (if rating (equal (getf cd :rating) rating) t)
> (if ripped-p (equal (getf cd :ripped) ripped) t))))
That's clearly written, an example of how in Lisp you can "just do
it" in the obvious way instead of going through contortions like
you need to do in other languages such as Java. But most of that
function definition is repeated boilerplate that would be the same
for defining similar functions nevermind duplicated within this
single definition. So after that way of coding it, if you plan to
write several similar functions, you should consider writing a
macro where you specify just the name of the macro and the parts
that vary from one such definition to another. Then each time you
want to write a specific type of WHERE function you code something
like this: (meta-where title artist rating (ripped-p ripped))
which expands to something like the above code. There are at least
three directions to go:
- If you call each specialized function just once in your code, you
would generate an anonymous function on the fly at the one point
of use, instead of defining a named function then calling it just
once.
- If you plan to call such a function lots of times and are willing
to deal with giving a different name to each distinct version of
the function, generate the DEFUN as above once, then call it by
name each place you need it.
- If you might call each such function more than once, but there
are many variants of such a function and it would be a hassle to
make up distinct names for each such function, have the macro
generate code to maintain a hash table of variants, defining
such a function the first time it's called then re-using that
function again whenever another instance of it occurs.
The nice thing about Lisp is that it's relatively easy to do it
*any* of those ways, and to change your mind and re-implement it a
different way without needing to re-write any of the calls
(although you will need to recompile any call to the macro after
the macro has changed, minor nuisance). You aren't constrained to
do it just one way, or prohibited from using macros at all.
<aside>If the Seed7 guy is reading this thread, I'm curious how
easy it would be in Seed7 for an ordinary programmer to
enhance the syntax to support all three ways.</aside>
<box/> my thinking
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>>From: Kenny <·········@gmail.com>
>>(defun where (&key title artist rating (ripped nil ripped-p))
>> #'(lambda (cd)
>> (and
>> (if title (equal (getf cd :title) title) t)
>> (if artist (equal (getf cd :artist) artist) t)
>> (if rating (equal (getf cd :rating) rating) t)
>> (if ripped-p (equal (getf cd :ripped) ripped) t))))
>
>
> That's clearly written, an example of how in Lisp you can "just do
> it" in the obvious way instead of going through contortions like
> you need to do in other languages such as Java. But most of that
> function definition is repeated boilerplatel...
That was my thinking. About Peter Seibel's code. Not mine. Hint.
Drop the keywords and straghtway one can code (JTIOTOMH):
(macrolet ((match (x v)
`(or (null ,x) (equal (getf cd ',x) ,v))))
(and (match title)
(match artist)...))
..with an obvious next step to follow if one plans a lot of these.
kxo
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:35:13 -0400, Kenny wrote:
> Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>>>From: Kenny <·········@gmail.com>
>>>(defun where (&key title artist rating (ripped nil ripped-p))
>>> #'(lambda (cd)
>>> (and
>>> (if title (equal (getf cd :title) title) t) (if artist
>>> (equal (getf cd :artist) artist) t) (if rating (equal (getf
>>> cd :rating) rating) t) (if ripped-p (equal (getf cd :ripped)
>>> ripped) t))))
>>
>>
>> That's clearly written, an example of how in Lisp you can "just do it"
>> in the obvious way instead of going through contortions like you need
>> to do in other languages such as Java. But most of that function
>> definition is repeated boilerplatel...
>
> That was my thinking. About Peter Seibel's code. Not mine. Hint.
>
> Drop the keywords and straghtway one can code (JTIOTOMH):
>
> (macrolet ((match (x v)
> `(or (null ,x) (equal (getf cd ',x) ,v))))
> (and (match title)
> (match artist)...))
>
> ..with an obvious next step to follow if one plans a lot of these.
Indeed. But keep in mind that the example is in the third chapter of the
book, just after the user was introduced to the REPL in chapter 2.
Macros come later (chapters 7 & 8). Dumping the "best" solution on
people who just got started with CL would not make much sense in this
context.
Tamas
Thanks everybody for all the help you are giving me here...
Today i read the book up to the end of chapter 5...the only problem
with this book is the missing of guided exercises...maybe i'll try
reading also "gently introduction..." and ""COMMON LISP: An
Interactive Approach" with PCL...
> From: Tamas K Papp <······@gmail.com>
> ... keep in mind that the example is in the third chapter of the
> book, just after the user was introduced to the REPL in chapter 2.
> Macros come later (chapters 7 & 8). Dumping the "best" solution on
> people who just got started with CL would not make much sense in
> this context.
I agree completely. In fact I would go further into the process of
R&D from initial concept to first working algorithm to better and
better in various ways. Before even the first complete algorithm is
presented, the reader should be shown how to devise such an
algorithm in the first place by line-at-a-time testing of
data-processing steps and then finally collecting all those lines
of code into a PROG and then showing how to refactor the code in a
more "lispy" way, up to the main technique being presented in that
chapter. But then there should be a teaser forward reference
telling how this generic code can be encapsulated into a "macro"
whereby instead of writing such-and-such function call that
includes mostly repeated "boilerplate" with just a few things
changed from call to call we can write this much more compact and
to-the-point expression of the instance of this generic task where
all the boilerplate is hidden inside the "macro" and only the name
of the macro plus the *NEW* data that varies from instance need be
explicitly written for each new instance of this generic algorithm.
Then in the chapter on macros, there should be a reference to this
algorithm from earlier chapter, and explanation of how to actually
define and use that macro. Then another forward reference, this
time to a later chapter where we go beyond macros to reader-macros
or domain-specific languages with their own individual parsers.
e_0r wrote:
>>(JTIOTOMH)
>>kxo
>
>
> ..I'm still working on that one. Google didn't help much.
sorry, just kidding around, and I left out a T to make it worse. Problem
is a lot of times I cannot be bothered to type into a lisp IDE and even
balance parens, and "untested" does not quite cover it. But my fan base
knows I do that, so I figgered anyone would realize the code was just
typed in off [the] top of my head.
kt
i have some rudimental knowledge in programming...i come from audio
world and up to now i use max/msp (maybe you know it), csound, a
little supercollider...but it's the first time alone with a general
porpouse programming language...now i try go on with PCL (anyway it's
a good book to read)...then i'll shift to other...
thank!
On Oct 16, 6:15 pm, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
> thanks everybody for you answers
> Now i'm reading capter 3 of "pratical common lisp": i really hope
> chapter 2 is only a "whirlwind tour" as the author calls it, because
> if things are going to get even more complicated it's not my kind of
> book!!!!!!!!!
I'm not sure that PCL is the best place to start. I've bought five or
six Lisp book so far, and I think that Wilensky's 'Common LISPcraft'
is the best for a beginner. It can be had for very little on half.com
or amazon.com.
Graham's 'ANSI Lisp' is good as well, but it's a second or third book.
It's too dense to be of much use to a beginner, but meaty for someone
with some Lisp experience.
I like PCL, but I think that you miss a lot by seeing only one view of
the language. I would encourage you to get several books and compare
their views of the language. Lisp is sufficiently malleable to allow
you to blend whatever approach you find most to your liking.
CC
cartercc <········@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| On Oct 16, 6:15�pm, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
| > Now i'm reading capter 3 of "pratical common lisp": i really hope
| > chapter 2 is only a "whirlwind tour" as the author calls it, because
| > if things are going to get even more complicated it's not my kind of
| > book!!!!!!!!!
|
| I'm not sure that PCL is the best place to start.
...
| I like PCL, but I think that you miss a lot by seeing only one view of
| the language. I would encourage you to get several books and compare
| their views of the language. Lisp is sufficiently malleable to allow
| you to blend whatever approach you find most to your liking.
+---------------
I already knew Scheme at the time, so I'm sure that biases things a
bit, but I found Peter Norvig's "Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence
Programming: Case Studies in Common Lisp" <http://www.norvig.com/paip.html>
to be a *great* intro to CL, much more so than as in intro to AI per se.
*Quite* worth the $80-90 price, IMHO.
Norvig wrote a retrospective <http://norvig.com/Lisp-retro.html>
in October 1997 (six years after the book was published), updated
again in April 2002, which near the end contains a section titled
"What Lessons are in PAIP?", giving his own personal "list of the
52 most important lessons in PAIP" [each is indexed to the page(s)
in the book where that particular lesson comes up].
It definitely gives one a different (not necessarily "better"
or "worse" -- just different) view of the language than "PCL"
or "ANSI Common Lisp" [or "On Lisp", for that matter, since
Norvig & Graham have slightly different approaches to the use
of macros].
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
··············@gmail.com writes:
> Hi everybody
>
> I'm starting learning common lisp by myself using online book
> "pratical common lisp" by Peter Seibel...the book suggests the use of
> 'lisp in a box' for the exercises...but i never use emacs and it's
> about an hour i'm trying to digit the "~" symbol on my italian
> keyboard (usually i have to press ALT + 1 2 6 on bloc num keys).
The error is in using a national keyboard to do programming. I never
could use the French AZERTY keyboard for programming, whatever the
language (even LSE which used French keywords, didn't use accented
letters, but used special characters not easily typed from a French
keyboad).
So if you plan to become a programmer, I'd advise you to switch to
american keyboard. (If the marking on your italian keyboard are
misleading you may try an ultimate DasKeyboard keyboard:
http://www.daskeyboard.com/)
As a last resort, if you insist in using a national keyboard, at least
in emacs you can rebind the keys you need.
(keyboard-translate ?\\ ?`)
(keyboard-translate ?| ?~)
Of course since \ and | are also used in programming, you will have to
move them back to their normal place:
(keyboard-translate ?� ?\\)
(keyboard-translate ?� ?|)
And so on. As I said, it's easier to just switch to the american layout.
> Do you have any other suggestions for me? Is there in the net some
> forum for Common lisp users?
There is this newsgroup: news:comp.lang.lisp
For realtime interaction, you may also try: irc://irc.freenode.org/#lisp
Have also a look at: http://www.cliki.net/
Have also a look at: http://www.common-lisp.net/
Have also a look at: http://www.cl-user.net/asp/root-dir
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
··············@gmail.com wrote:
> i'm trying to digit the "~" symbol on my italian
> keyboard (usually i have to press ALT + 1 2 6 on bloc num keys).
As an italian, I agree, programming with an italian keyboard is often a
frustrating experience. I remember the sad days of entering ALT-1-2-6 in
front of every perl regexp :)
My advice:
- If you have a Macintosh notebook, in Emacs remap the "meta" key to the
"FN" key (which is pretty useless otherwise). If you are using Aquamacs,
this can be easily done with the configuration menu. This leaves the
option key for the normal character operations. Entering a tilde is then
just a matter of pressing option-5, as usual in OS X.
- On Windows, most european keyboards have the "AltGr" key ("right Alt"
for the rest of the world) which can be used to obtain certain
characters, such as the square brackets, the braces, and the Euro sign.
For some reason, Microsoft stopped there, and the AltGr does nothing
when used in combination with all the other keys. If you want a tilde,
or a backtick for your macro, you are out of luck and must obey to that
awful "alt + numeric code" method.
But somewhere on the Microsoft site there is a free tool to create new
keyboard layouts. I have used it to create a new extended italian keymap
for Windows that use extensively the AltGr key, duplicating the "italian
pro" layout of Mac OS X. This allows you to use AltGr to enter the
tilde, the umlauts, mathematical signs and a lot of other things, while
the left ALT key is still mapped to the META key in emacs.
As Pascal said, an US keyboard is the best solution for programming, but
this keymap solution is a decent compromise IMHO. I can't post the file
here, email me if you are interested.
Giovanni
Hello, Carlo,
I, too, am a new Lisp learner who was exactly in your shoes about two
years ago. I have learned to use Lisp in a Box, have now returned to
it after trying several alternatives. Seibel recommends LiaB, and
after struggling with it for two years, I can understand why he does.
I came to emacs from the standpoint of a proficient vi user, and I had
the prejudice against emacs that vi users often have. emacs is a
different application than vi and made for different jobs. Emacs can
do things that vi cannot do (and vice versa). Despite all the bad
things you may have heard about emacs, it's a legitimate tool that
solves real problems.
Let me offer these bits of advice.
1. Don't give up on LiaB. Like other things that are valuable, you
have to earn it. If it were easy, it would be pretty much worthless.
2. Read the first three chapter of PCL and make a very careful note of
all the commands given. It does take a while to figure out how to use
them effectively, but once mastered, they are useful. In particular, I
like the way you can bounce back and forth between the SLIME REPL and
your source file: edit, compile, load, and run; edit, compile, load,
and run; edit, compile, load, and run.
3. If you have access to the tutorial that comes with emacs, go
through that. I have found that it most reliably comes on Unix/Linux
rather than Windows, but it's easy to go through and you don't have to
go far to get good usability. Cntl-H, t.
4. Run clisp from the command prompt. This will VERY QUICKLY give you
an appreciation for LiaB.
5. Remember that there is a set of emacs commands, a set of Lisp
commands, and a considerable intersection between the two sets. It's
easy to get confused, because you can't tell if a command is Lisp
Lisp, or emacs Lisp. This is normal I think, so be confused all you
want, but don't let it bother you.
Don't give up on LiaB. As one who has come through it, I can tell you
that it's a reasonable programming environment and worth learning how
to use.
CC
On Oct 15, 7:30 pm, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi everybody
>
> I'm starting learning common lisp by myself using online book
> "pratical common lisp" by Peter Seibel...the book suggests the use of
> 'lisp in a box' for the exercises...but i never use emacs and it's
> about an hour i'm trying to digit the "~" symbol on my italian
> keyboard (usually i have to press ALT + 1 2 6 on bloc num keys).
>
> Now i found a way of copy it out of emacs and paste it inside. But
> it's not so easy to do it everytime...as you can imagine...i try with
> emacs documentation but i can't find it.
>
> can you help me please?
>
> Do you have any other suggestions for me?is there in the net some
> forum for Common lisp users?