[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.lisp

Re: A "killer" macro

William James

12/29/2015 11:13:00 AM

Thomas A. Russ wrote:

> Well, the point here would be: How could you implement that in Ruby IF
> the language didn't already have it in the first place? In other words,
> could you add something that works like that syntactically if the
> compiler writers and language designers HAD NOT ALREADY built it for
> you?
>
> That's the beauty of Lisp macros. You can add them.
>
> Loop is an example of an iteration construct that was (quite literally)
> added to the lisp language through macro programming. And for those who
> don't like loop, there's series. How many languages would let you
> create a WHILE or a FOR loop construct when the language didn't already
> support it?

MatzLisp (Ruby):

def mywhile test
loop {break unless test.call; yield}
end

x = 0
mywhile ->{x < 22}{x += 5}
x
===>
25


class Integer
def fromto(top, &block)
(self .. top).each &block
end
end

2.fromto(9){|i| p i}
===>
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9


2.fromto(9).to_a
===>
[2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]


--
Amazon bans book. After nearly a month on the site, all traces of the book and
its 80 reviews have been removed.
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/11/debunking-sandy-hook-debunk...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E...
37 Answers

Bert Hyman

4/5/2012 11:07:00 PM

0

In news:e89sn757jcqqqvngv12paqnqoca2lavuj7@4ax.com .MattB.
<trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:

> On 05 Apr 2012 22:55:19 GMT, Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:223sn7h8cufarf25lg5vdlrl6usanhhnp2@4ax.com .MattB.
>><trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>
>>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>
> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
> private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.

So what, if any, was the purpose of your original post?

--
bert@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

.MattB.

4/5/2012 11:18:00 PM

0

On 05 Apr 2012 23:06:58 GMT, Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

>In news:e89sn757jcqqqvngv12paqnqoca2lavuj7@4ax.com .MattB.
><trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05 Apr 2012 22:55:19 GMT, Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In news:223sn7h8cufarf25lg5vdlrl6usanhhnp2@4ax.com .MattB.
>>><trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>
>>>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>
>> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>> private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
>
>So what, if any, was the purpose of your original post?

I'm interested in the opinion of others.

China Blue Veins

4/5/2012 11:33:00 PM

0

In article <XnsA02CB64FB8FF0VeebleFetzer@216.250.188.140>,
Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

> In news:223sn7h8cufarf25lg5vdlrl6usanhhnp2@4ax.com .MattB.
> <trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>
> Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?

Republicans already despise federal courts for 'judicial activism'. One decision
they like wouldn't change that. Now the supremes are set to piss off the people
that have been defending their independence. No wonder an appellate court is
running scared.

--
My name Indigo Montoya. | R'lyeh 38o57'6.5''S 102o51'16''E.
You flamed my father. | I'm whoever you want me to be.
Prepare to be spanked. | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Stop posting that! | At least I can stay in character.

lsrlts

4/5/2012 11:38:00 PM

0

On 4/5/2012 4:32 PM, China Blue Water Navy wrote:
> Now the supremes are set to piss off the people
> that have been defending their independence.

"Independence" to be *compelled* to do business with private vendors?

Fred E Brown

4/6/2012

0


"China Blue Water Navy" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-524813.16323405042012@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <XnsA02CB64FB8FF0VeebleFetzer@216.250.188.140>,
> Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:223sn7h8cufarf25lg5vdlrl6usanhhnp2@4ax.com .MattB.
>> <trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>
>> Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>
> Republicans already despise federal courts for 'judicial activism'. One
> decision
> they like wouldn't change that. Now the supremes are set to piss off the
> people
> that have been defending their independence. No wonder an appellate court
> is
> running scared.

You don't even understand what "judicial activism' is.
Judicial activism is a judge legislating from the bench.
The courts reviewing the constitutionality of legislation is not judicial
activism.
Too many ignorant, uneducated people here getting the definitions between
the
two terms confused.
The courts job is not to review legislation to see if it is "good for
people", it's
job is to determine if the legislation is constitutional.




> --
> My name Indigo Montoya. | R'lyeh 38o57'6.5''S 102o51'16''E.
> You flamed my father. | I'm whoever you want me to be.
> Prepare to be spanked. | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> Stop posting that! | At least I can stay in character.

lsrlts

4/6/2012 12:05:00 AM

0

On 4/5/2012 5:00 PM, Fred E Brown wrote:
>
> "China Blue Water Navy" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:chine.bleu-524813.16323405042012@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <XnsA02CB64FB8FF0VeebleFetzer@216.250.188.140>,
>> Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:223sn7h8cufarf25lg5vdlrl6usanhhnp2@4ax.com .MattB.
>>> <trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>
>>> Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>
>> Republicans already despise federal courts for 'judicial activism'.
>> One decision
>> they like wouldn't change that. Now the supremes are set to piss off
>> the people
>> that have been defending their independence. No wonder an appellate
>> court is
>> running scared.
>
> You don't even understand what "judicial activism' is.
> Judicial activism is a judge legislating from the bench.
> The courts reviewing the constitutionality of legislation is not
> judicial activism.
> Too many ignorant, uneducated people here getting the definitions
> between the
> two terms confused.
> The courts job is not to review legislation to see if it is "good for
> people", it's
> job is to determine if the legislation is constitutional.
>
>
Thank you.

First. Post

4/6/2012 12:50:00 AM

0

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:17:38 -0700, .MattB. <trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com>
wrote:

>On 05 Apr 2012 23:06:58 GMT, Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:e89sn757jcqqqvngv12paqnqoca2lavuj7@4ax.com .MattB.
>><trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05 Apr 2012 22:55:19 GMT, Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In news:223sn7h8cufarf25lg5vdlrl6usanhhnp2@4ax.com .MattB.
>>>><trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>
>>>>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>>
>>> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>>> private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
>>
>>So what, if any, was the purpose of your original post?
>
> I'm interested in the opinion of others.

Since you asked. You posted a snippet from an article talking about how the
court has no business making healthcare decisions.
THEY ARE NOT REVIEWING HEALTHCARE. THEY ARE REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
A LAW THAT REQUIRES THE POPULATION TO PURCHASE A SPECIFIC PRODUCT OR BE
PUNISHED.

And as far as all the hell raising about what the judges believe or don't
believe is concerned, It appears to be fairly obvious that the loudest mouths
that are already berating the SCOTUS prior to them even ruling on the matter
belong to those that already know that the government cannot force every man
woman and child in the nation to purchase a product as a consequence of
citizenship. What they are really pissed about is the fact that it is going to
be reviewed by the SCOTUS and they never thought it would go that far.
Obama knows his little healthcare law is unconstitutional or he wouldn't have
been so quick to make his dumbassed pre-judgement on what the court will decide
and jumped their ass in public over it.
Those wanting to piss about what the SCOTUS might decide are behaving just
exactly like elementary school brats sitting in the office waiting to see the
principal bitching about what punishment they know they're about to get.

And it is simply laughable that Obama actually said that he needs to be
re-elected so he can appoint two more liberal judges to the SCOTUS.
For 8 years straight we heard time and time again how Bush supposedly wanted to
be a dictator because of a stupid joke he made.
Now we have a president that ain't joking about it in the least.

.MattB.

4/6/2012 1:15:00 AM

0

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:50:10 -0500, First. Post
<OccupiersDumberThanDirt@invalid.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:17:38 -0700, .MattB. <trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 05 Apr 2012 23:06:58 GMT, Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In news:e89sn757jcqqqvngv12paqnqoca2lavuj7@4ax.com .MattB.
>>><trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05 Apr 2012 22:55:19 GMT, Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In news:223sn7h8cufarf25lg5vdlrl6usanhhnp2@4ax.com .MattB.
>>>>><trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>>
>>>>>Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>>>
>>>> They all should put the Constitution before politics or their own
>>>> private religious beliefs. Goes with the job.
>>>
>>>So what, if any, was the purpose of your original post?
>>
>> I'm interested in the opinion of others.
>
>Since you asked. You posted a snippet from an article talking about how the
>court has no business making healthcare decisions.
>THEY ARE NOT REVIEWING HEALTHCARE. THEY ARE REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
>A LAW THAT REQUIRES THE POPULATION TO PURCHASE A SPECIFIC PRODUCT OR BE
>PUNISHED.
>
>And as far as all the hell raising about what the judges believe or don't
>believe is concerned, It appears to be fairly obvious that the loudest mouths
>that are already berating the SCOTUS prior to them even ruling on the matter
>belong to those that already know that the government cannot force every man
>woman and child in the nation to purchase a product as a consequence of
>citizenship. What they are really pissed about is the fact that it is going to
>be reviewed by the SCOTUS and they never thought it would go that far.
>Obama knows his little healthcare law is unconstitutional or he wouldn't have
>been so quick to make his dumbassed pre-judgement on what the court will decide
>and jumped their ass in public over it.
>Those wanting to piss about what the SCOTUS might decide are behaving just
>exactly like elementary school brats sitting in the office waiting to see the
>principal bitching about what punishment they know they're about to get.
>
>And it is simply laughable that Obama actually said that he needs to be
>re-elected so he can appoint two more liberal judges to the SCOTUS.
>For 8 years straight we heard time and time again how Bush supposedly wanted to
>be a dictator because of a stupid joke he made.
>Now we have a president that ain't joking about it in the least.


We don't need more liberal Judges we need 2 moderate Judges.

Think Obama might know that part of the bill is likely to be
considered Unconstitutional.

Just my opinion ;-))

China Blue Veins

4/6/2012 1:21:00 AM

0

In article <4f7e319a$0$95005$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred E Brown" <fredebrown@nowhere.com> wrote:

> "China Blue Water Navy" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:chine.bleu-524813.16323405042012@news.eternal-september.org...
> > In article <XnsA02CB64FB8FF0VeebleFetzer@216.250.188.140>,
> > Bert <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In news:223sn7h8cufarf25lg5vdlrl6usanhhnp2@4ax.com .MattB.
> >> <trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
> >>
> >> Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
> >
> > Republicans already despise federal courts for 'judicial activism'. One
> > decision
> > they like wouldn't change that. Now the supremes are set to piss off the
> > people
> > that have been defending their independence. No wonder an appellate court
> > is
> > running scared.
>
> You don't even understand what "judicial activism' is.

It's when Republican don't like a decision.

--
My name Indigo Montoya. | R'lyeh 38o57'6.5''S 102o51'16''E.
You flamed my father. | I'm whoever you want me to be.
Prepare to be spanked. | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Stop posting that! | At least I can stay in character.

lsrlts

4/6/2012 1:21:00 AM

0

On 4/5/2012 6:20 PM, China Blue Water Navy wrote:
> In article<4f7e319a$0$95005$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
> "Fred E Brown"<fredebrown@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> "China Blue Water Navy"<chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:chine.bleu-524813.16323405042012@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In article<XnsA02CB64FB8FF0VeebleFetzer@216.250.188.140>,
>>> Bert<bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:223sn7h8cufarf25lg5vdlrl6usanhhnp2@4ax.com .MattB.
>>>> <trdell1234@Nomorespamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Supreme Court's Contempt for Congress
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you mean the Congress' contempt for the Constitution?
>>>
>>> Republicans already despise federal courts for 'judicial activism'. One
>>> decision
>>> they like wouldn't change that. Now the supremes are set to piss off the
>>> people
>>> that have been defending their independence. No wonder an appellate court
>>> is
>>> running scared.
>>
>> You don't even understand what "judicial activism' is.
>
> It's when Republican don't like a decision.
>

And when Obama's care is under review...