[parenscript-devel] New Parenscript release.

[Vladimir Sedach]

Hi Clinton,

As I posted previously, I'm strongly opposed to the presence of dot
syntax in Parenscript. If UCW really needs the dot syntax (I don't see
any reason for that, but that's a UCW issue), you are better off
writing a code-walker that would do the dot transformation on the
symbols it encounters, rather than forking Parenscript.

Vladimir

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Clinton Ebadi <clinton at unknownlamer.org> wrote:
> John Fremlin <john at fremlin.org> writes:
>
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> It seems that the new parenscript horribly breaks tpd2.
>>
>> The awful part of the business is changing from using elements.push etc.
>> methods.
>>
>> You seem to recommend to rewrite them as ((slot-value elements 'push)
>> new-thing).
>>
>> This is completely not at all related to Common Lisp syntax, which was
>> supposedly the aim of this change, so I guess I am barking up the wrong
>> end of the stick.
>>
>> Should I wait for the reader macros before making the update?
>
> I've been tasked with re-adding the shorthand syntax to parenscript [0]
> in the symbol-syntax if you need these features. Right now it only does
> (.method ...)  syntax, but sometime today or tomorrow I'll have
> (foo.bar.baz) expanding to ((slot-value foo 'bar) 'baz). I'm not sure
> whether it is worthwhile keeping foo[bar] syntax; (aref foo bar) is not
> particularly less convenient.
>
> If upstream will not accept the changes this will be maintained as part
> of UCW again (probably renamed to avoid conflicts; since ps no longer
> uses the js package we'll move back there). I'll try to keep up with
> merges from upstream and whatnot as well.
>
> [0] http://git.hcoop.net/?p=clinton/parenscript.git;a=summary
> --
> <captain_krunk> ntk is currently using "telnet fyodor 25" to send email
>
> _______________________________________________
> parenscript-devel mailing list
> parenscript-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parenscript-devel
>