[parenscript-devel] I like the deprecated names better

[Daniel Gackle]

< Unlike the JS form, a Parenscript macro definition does involve any
Javascript translation.  For a concise alternative to "defscriptmacro" I
think "defpsmacro" is more accurate.  defjsmacro seems incorrect since
you are defining something that operates purely at the Parenscript level. >

That's a good point. I agree.

< I might actually prefer a with-style macro for embedding Parenscript
code similar to "with-output-to-string" >

We wrote something like this and use it in our project. I'd be interested in
the alternatives here.

Still, I like writing (js (blah)) for short expressions, especially in the
REPL.

Dan




On 7/30/07, Red Daly <reddaly at stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Daniel Gackle wrote:
> > I agree with renaming Parenscript's package from :js to :parenscript
> > or :ps. Indeed, just :parenscript would be fine. A library and its
> > package should usually have the same name. However, some of the
> > function and macro names that Parenscript now complains are
> > deprecated, I actually prefer to their replacements.
> >
> > For example, the js macro is accurately named. I prefer this:
> >
> >    (js (setf x 1))
> >
> > to this:
> >
> >   (ps (setf x 1))
> >
> > ...because "js" reminds me that I'm generating Javascript (not
> > Parenscript). To me it's closer to the meaning. What I especially
> > don't like, though, is this:
> >
> >   (script (setf x 1))
> >
> > ... because there are at least two other scripting languages embedded
> > in my Lisp code, and the term "script" could apply to any of them. I
> > need to know at all times which kind of script I'm working with. In
> > this case it's Javascript.
>
> SCRIPT: I used SCRIPT because if you consider the full symbol name,
> PS:SCRIPT it should be obvious what type of script you are embedding.
> In the context of the Parenscript package, "script" means Parenscript.
>
> It seems difficult to communicate the meaning of the macro with a single
> word.  Maybe JS, JS*, PS, and PS* are all bad.
>
> I might actually prefer a with-style macro for embedding Parenscript
> code similar to "with-output-to-string" or the "with-html-output" form
> in CL-WHO:
>
> (with-js-output (option*)
>   parenscript-form*)
> => javascript result
>
> >
> > Similarly, I much prefer "defjsmacro" to "defscriptmacro". Much
> > clearer and more expressive.
> Unlike the JS form, a Parenscript macro definition does involve any
> Javascript translation.  For a concise alternative to "defscriptmacro" I
> think "defpsmacro" is more accurate.  defjsmacro seems incorrect since
> you are defining something that operates purely at the Parenscript level.
> >
> > There's sort of a philosophical point here. I don't see Parenscript as
> > a separate language. I see it as an interface to Javascript. I don't
> > want an extra mental layer getting in the way, and I certainly don't
> > want to forget that I'm writing Javascript. (I love using macros to
> > build up abstractions in Parenscript - in fact that's a big reason I
> > use PS - but to me that's a separate issue.)
> > Bottom line, I have a moderate preference for "js" names instead of
> > "ps" ones and a strong objection to the generic term "script". What do
> > others think?
> >
> > Daniel
>
> Red
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > parenscript-devel mailing list
> > parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
> > http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> parenscript-devel mailing list
> parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/parenscript-devel/attachments/20070730/61afca3c/attachment.html>