From cjyoujsd at yahoo.com.cn  Tue Jun  3 02:22:03 2008
From: cjyoujsd at yahoo.com.cn (=?shift-jis?B?ZnJlZV9tYWls?=)
Date: Mon,  2 Jun 2008 22:22:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [anaphora-devel] シャネルの腕時計のSPコピー
Message-ID: <20080603022203.F04F1671D2@common-lisp.net>

?????????????????????????????????
????????????????????
http://spbrandshop.net/sc_054acw/

??????????????????????????



From julian at cipht.net  Wed Jun  4 11:16:57 2008
From: julian at cipht.net (Julian Squires)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 07:16:57 -0400
Subject: [anaphora-devel] aand only does the first argument?
In-Reply-To: <B06B035C-6F35-4EE3-8548-80B5BAAB78CA@metabang.com>
References: <B06B035C-6F35-4EE3-8548-80B5BAAB78CA@metabang.com>
Message-ID: <8986e60806040416s779ad7cel7f0488db45782b55@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Gary,

Sorry for the long delay in responding.  I'm unsure about what's best
to do here.

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Gary King <gwking at metabang.com> wrote:
> I was surprised to find that aand only binds it to the first argument rather
> than binding each one in turn.

Indeed, so am I.  But it is as documented.

> where `it` is bound to the result of each test in turn. Is there a deep
> reason for preferring one over the other. Could both be included? Perhaps
> call the current one `aand` and the one I want `aand+` (ugh?). It could also
> be `aand-multiple`, `nested-aand`, ...

Do you have any suggestions for a better name for the nested one?  I
guess aand+ is the closest to acceptable, as I'd rather not have a
long name for this.  Ideally I'd like to replace the existing aand,
but I'm not sure what other programs might depend on its current
behavior.

Is there anyone else out there with comments on the matter?  If not,
I'm going to look at what some existing programs depend on, and
potentially replace aand with the multiple binding version
(potentially renaming the single to something like aand1), but make
the next anaphora release a major version increase.

Cheers,

-- 
Julian Squires


From gwking at metabang.com  Sun Jun  8 03:19:22 2008
From: gwking at metabang.com (Gary King)
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 23:19:22 -0400
Subject: [anaphora-devel] aand only does the first argument?
In-Reply-To: <8986e60806040416s779ad7cel7f0488db45782b55@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B06B035C-6F35-4EE3-8548-80B5BAAB78CA@metabang.com>
	<8986e60806040416s779ad7cel7f0488db45782b55@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <433A70EE-8FEA-4715-BD12-9A452DC2B1BB@metabang.com>

Thanks Julian,

I agree that's it's hard to know what to do when there is a change  
like this. I like your idea regarding aand1 for the current and aand  
for the new. One solution would be to use  a feature to control  
whether one gets aand1/aand or aand/aand+. To be persnickity, you  
could go through the following steps:

  * default to second pair for now unless :anaphora-use-aand-nested is  
on the features list;
  * default to second pair but warn on compile unless :anaphora-use- 
aand-nested is on the features list
  * default to the first, but use the second if :anaphora-use-aand-one  
is on the features list

Gary



On Jun 4, 2008, at 7:16 AM, Julian Squires wrote:

> Hi Gary,
>
> Sorry for the long delay in responding.  I'm unsure about what's best
> to do here.
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Gary King <gwking at metabang.com>  
> wrote:
>> I was surprised to find that aand only binds it to the first  
>> argument rather
>> than binding each one in turn.
>
> Indeed, so am I.  But it is as documented.
>
>> where `it` is bound to the result of each test in turn. Is there a  
>> deep
>> reason for preferring one over the other. Could both be included?  
>> Perhaps
>> call the current one `aand` and the one I want `aand+` (ugh?). It  
>> could also
>> be `aand-multiple`, `nested-aand`, ...
>
> Do you have any suggestions for a better name for the nested one?  I
> guess aand+ is the closest to acceptable, as I'd rather not have a
> long name for this.  Ideally I'd like to replace the existing aand,
> but I'm not sure what other programs might depend on its current
> behavior.
>
> Is there anyone else out there with comments on the matter?  If not,
> I'm going to look at what some existing programs depend on, and
> potentially replace aand with the multiple binding version
> (potentially renaming the single to something like aand1), but make
> the next anaphora release a major version increase.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- 
> Julian Squires

--
Gary Warren King, metabang.com
Cell: (413) 559 8738
Fax: (206) 338-4052
gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM






From nikodemus at random-state.net  Sun Jun  8 10:35:12 2008
From: nikodemus at random-state.net (Nikodemus Siivola)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 13:35:12 +0300
Subject: [anaphora-devel] aand only does the first argument?
In-Reply-To: <433A70EE-8FEA-4715-BD12-9A452DC2B1BB@metabang.com>
References: <B06B035C-6F35-4EE3-8548-80B5BAAB78CA@metabang.com>
	<8986e60806040416s779ad7cel7f0488db45782b55@mail.gmail.com>
	<433A70EE-8FEA-4715-BD12-9A452DC2B1BB@metabang.com>
Message-ID: <633d72b0806080335l447b1615jabd9afb44c1b5c2e@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Gary King <gwking at metabang.com> wrote:

>  * default to second pair for now unless :anaphora-use-aand-nested is on the
> features list;
>  * default to second pair but warn on compile unless
> :anaphora-use-aand-nested is on the features list
>  * default to the first, but use the second if :anaphora-use-aand-one is on
> the features list

Please no. Using compile time *FEATURES* to change semantics like that
is pretty horrible.

Cheers,

 -- Nikodemus


From julian at cipht.net  Sun Jun  8 12:04:07 2008
From: julian at cipht.net (Julian Squires)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 08:04:07 -0400
Subject: [anaphora-devel] aand only does the first argument?
In-Reply-To: <433A70EE-8FEA-4715-BD12-9A452DC2B1BB@metabang.com>
References: <B06B035C-6F35-4EE3-8548-80B5BAAB78CA@metabang.com>
	<8986e60806040416s779ad7cel7f0488db45782b55@mail.gmail.com>
	<433A70EE-8FEA-4715-BD12-9A452DC2B1BB@metabang.com>
Message-ID: <8986e60806080504k50fea719t6c3a11d274b1a66d@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Gary,

I've decided to use AAND* in this case.  I'll write some tests and
commit it to CVS today.

Cheers,

-- 
Julian Squires


From gwking at metabang.com  Sun Jun  8 12:56:49 2008
From: gwking at metabang.com (Gary King)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 08:56:49 -0400
Subject: [anaphora-devel] aand only does the first argument?
In-Reply-To: <8986e60806080504k50fea719t6c3a11d274b1a66d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B06B035C-6F35-4EE3-8548-80B5BAAB78CA@metabang.com>
	<8986e60806040416s779ad7cel7f0488db45782b55@mail.gmail.com>
	<433A70EE-8FEA-4715-BD12-9A452DC2B1BB@metabang.com>
	<8986e60806080504k50fea719t6c3a11d274b1a66d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <291678B7-1CFD-43BD-930A-09016BE12A2B@metabang.com>

Sounds good to me. Thanks

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 8, 2008, at 8:04 AM, "Julian Squires" <julian at cipht.net> wrote:

> Hi Gary,
>
> I've decided to use AAND* in this case.  I'll write some tests and
> commit it to CVS today.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- 
> Julian Squires


From gwking at metabang.com  Sun Jun  8 12:58:52 2008
From: gwking at metabang.com (Gary King)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 08:58:52 -0400
Subject: [anaphora-devel] aand only does the first argument?
In-Reply-To: <633d72b0806080335l447b1615jabd9afb44c1b5c2e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B06B035C-6F35-4EE3-8548-80B5BAAB78CA@metabang.com>
	<8986e60806040416s779ad7cel7f0488db45782b55@mail.gmail.com>
	<433A70EE-8FEA-4715-BD12-9A452DC2B1BB@metabang.com>
	<633d72b0806080335l447b1615jabd9afb44c1b5c2e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4877F874-9208-4469-AA73-E6E6B1FBC224@metabang.com>

Well then, a defvar?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 8, 2008, at 6:35 AM, "Nikodemus Siivola" <nikodemus at random-state.net 
 > wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Gary King <gwking at metabang.com> wrote:
>
>> * default to second pair for now unless :anaphora-use-aand-nested  
>> is on the
>> features list;
>> * default to second pair but warn on compile unless
>> :anaphora-use-aand-nested is on the features list
>> * default to the first, but use the second if :anaphora-use-aand- 
>> one is on
>> the features list
>
> Please no. Using compile time *FEATURES* to change semantics like that
> is pretty horrible.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Nikodemus


From nikodemus at random-state.net  Sun Jun  8 13:32:48 2008
From: nikodemus at random-state.net (Nikodemus Siivola)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 16:32:48 +0300
Subject: [anaphora-devel] aand only does the first argument?
In-Reply-To: <4877F874-9208-4469-AA73-E6E6B1FBC224@metabang.com>
References: <B06B035C-6F35-4EE3-8548-80B5BAAB78CA@metabang.com>
	<8986e60806040416s779ad7cel7f0488db45782b55@mail.gmail.com>
	<433A70EE-8FEA-4715-BD12-9A452DC2B1BB@metabang.com>
	<633d72b0806080335l447b1615jabd9afb44c1b5c2e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4877F874-9208-4469-AA73-E6E6B1FBC224@metabang.com>
Message-ID: <633d72b0806080632k5e36d859k726c5f4c40e69a67@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Gary King <gwking at metabang.com> wrote:

>> Please no. Using compile time *FEATURES* to change semantics like that
>> is pretty horrible.
>
> Well then, a defvar?

Let me rephrase that: having any sort of magic that changes the
semantics of an interface is pretty horrible.

Granted, sometimes the line between "changing semantics" and "having a
flexible interface" is a fine one.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what you propose seems to be
pretty squarely on the "changing semantics with a magic toggle" side
of the line. If we just add AAND*, then I don't see the need for the
toggle.

Cheers,

 -- Nikodemus


From gwking at metabang.com  Sun Jun  8 14:19:38 2008
From: gwking at metabang.com (Gary King)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:19:38 -0400
Subject: [anaphora-devel] aand only does the first argument?
In-Reply-To: <633d72b0806080632k5e36d859k726c5f4c40e69a67@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B06B035C-6F35-4EE3-8548-80B5BAAB78CA@metabang.com>
	<8986e60806040416s779ad7cel7f0488db45782b55@mail.gmail.com>
	<433A70EE-8FEA-4715-BD12-9A452DC2B1BB@metabang.com>
	<633d72b0806080335l447b1615jabd9afb44c1b5c2e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4877F874-9208-4469-AA73-E6E6B1FBC224@metabang.com>
	<633d72b0806080632k5e36d859k726c5f4c40e69a67@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <36DD4B8B-FA95-48E1-84B4-F4B15B5FA7DB@metabang.com>

Hi Nikodemus,

I agree with you but I wasn't aiming for flexibility. I was proposing  
to use the *features* as a way to migrate from one semantics to  
another b/c IMHO, aand should be like the one in On Lisp that binds  
`it` all the way down and aand1 should be the one that binds `it` to  
only the first clause. However, it sucks to break downstream code  
willy-nilly.

I suppose what one really wants is "magic" that lets you remap symbols  
when you use a package (similar in spirit to what Eiffel lets you do  
when you do subclassiing... (n.b., my Eiffel knowledge is _way_ out of  
date) or maybe something that mimics "darcs replace" to changes tokens  
(only with proper language support so that things _never_ break (I did  
say magic, remember!).

In this case, I'm happy enough with aand* and this is a much simpler  
solution. In the general case, I'm not sure if there are good general  
solutions but it's fun to think about them.

thanks,

On Jun 8, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Nikodemus Siivola wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Gary King <gwking at metabang.com> wrote:
>
>>> Please no. Using compile time *FEATURES* to change semantics like  
>>> that
>>> is pretty horrible.
>>
>> Well then, a defvar?
>
> Let me rephrase that: having any sort of magic that changes the
> semantics of an interface is pretty horrible.
>
> Granted, sometimes the line between "changing semantics" and "having a
> flexible interface" is a fine one.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but what you propose seems to be
> pretty squarely on the "changing semantics with a magic toggle" side
> of the line. If we just add AAND*, then I don't see the need for the
> toggle.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Nikodemus

--
Gary Warren King, metabang.com
Cell: (413) 559 8738
Fax: (206) 338-4052
gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM






From nikodemus at random-state.net  Sun Jun  8 15:18:33 2008
From: nikodemus at random-state.net (Nikodemus Siivola)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 18:18:33 +0300
Subject: [anaphora-devel] aand only does the first argument?
In-Reply-To: <36DD4B8B-FA95-48E1-84B4-F4B15B5FA7DB@metabang.com>
References: <B06B035C-6F35-4EE3-8548-80B5BAAB78CA@metabang.com>
	<8986e60806040416s779ad7cel7f0488db45782b55@mail.gmail.com>
	<433A70EE-8FEA-4715-BD12-9A452DC2B1BB@metabang.com>
	<633d72b0806080335l447b1615jabd9afb44c1b5c2e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4877F874-9208-4469-AA73-E6E6B1FBC224@metabang.com>
	<633d72b0806080632k5e36d859k726c5f4c40e69a67@mail.gmail.com>
	<36DD4B8B-FA95-48E1-84B4-F4B15B5FA7DB@metabang.com>
Message-ID: <633d72b0806080818t5b43a2dh8c11ea74b6f37881@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Gary King <gwking at metabang.com> wrote:

> I agree with you but I wasn't aiming for flexibility. I was proposing to use
> the *features* as a way to migrate from one semantics to another b/c IMHO,

Ah, I misunderstood slightly -- I thought this was ment to be
permanent state of affairs.

Cheers,

 -- Nikodemus


From cjyoujsd at yahoo.com.cn  Sat Jun 14 10:49:12 2008
From: cjyoujsd at yahoo.com.cn (=?shift-jis?B?bWFpbHBvc3RtYXN0ZXI=?=)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:49:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [anaphora-devel] 新作のLOUIS VUITTONのスー
Message-ID: <20080614104912.BCF1C19@common-lisp.net>

???????????????????????????????????
???LOUIS VUITTON??????????????????
???????????????????????????????????


??????????????????????????????
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://spbrandshop.net/

???????????????????????????????????
??????????

???????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????

????
???????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????
?????????

http://spbrandshop.net/



From cjyoujsd at yahoo.com.cn  Fri Jun 20 02:21:39 2008
From: cjyoujsd at yahoo.com.cn (=?shift-jis?B?bWFpbCBob3Q=?=)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:21:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [anaphora-devel] 新作のLOUIS VUITTONのスー
Message-ID: <20080620022139.BC2DD4204D@common-lisp.net>

???????????????????????????????????
???LOUIS VUITTON??????????????????
???????????????????????????????????


??????????????????????????????
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://spbrandshop.net/

???????????????????????????????????
??????????

???????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????

????
???????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????
?????????

http://spbrandshop.net/



From cjyoujsd at yahoo.com.cn  Thu Jun 26 10:12:54 2008
From: cjyoujsd at yahoo.com.cn (=?shift-jis?B?bXVyeW91bWFpbA==?=)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:12:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [anaphora-devel] 新作のLOUIS VUITTONのスー
Message-ID: <20080626101254.1BF0775138@common-lisp.net>

???????????????????????????????????
???LOUIS VUITTON??????????????????
???????????????????????????????????


??????????????????????????????
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://spbrandshop.net/

???????????????????????????????????
??????????

???????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????

????
???????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????
?????????

http://spbrandshop.net/



From cjyoujsd at yahoo.com.cn  Fri Jun 27 14:24:26 2008
From: cjyoujsd at yahoo.com.cn (=?shift-jis?B?bWl4bG9u?=)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:24:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [anaphora-devel] 新作のLOUIS VUITTONのスー
Message-ID: <20080627142426.60D0147005@common-lisp.net>

???????????????????????????????????
???LOUIS VUITTON??????????????????
???????????????????????????????????


??????????????????????????????
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://spbrandshop.net/

???????????????????????????????????
??????????

???????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????

????
???????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????
?????????

http://spbrandshop.net/



From cjyoujsd at yahoo.com.cn  Sun Jun 29 13:44:32 2008
From: cjyoujsd at yahoo.com.cn (=?shift-jis?B?bWFpbCBob3Q=?=)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:44:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [anaphora-devel] 新作のLOUIS VUITTONのスー
Message-ID: <20080629134432.20F81682C1@common-lisp.net>

???????????????????????????????????
???LOUIS VUITTON??????????????????
???????????????????????????????????


??????????????????????????????
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://spbrandshop.net/

???????????????????????????????????
??????????

???????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????

????
???????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????
?????????

http://spbrandshop.net/