![]() I guess this is why lisp has wallowed in obscurity for the > definition of free, so this all probably looks like Strawberry Fields to > But you have been sucked into the FSF matrix and suckered into their > bad, do it? Sounds more irritating than free-wheeling, and then you are > have half the tool you would have with a commercial IDE? ie, If it feels > So you can slave away for hours just to get your tools working and then > wheeling, open-source hippy so I'd rather stick to open tools. > environment? I think lispworks might do this, but I'm a free. > let you browse packages, refactor, inspect like in a smalltalk > On a related note, are there any open source lisp environments that Treatment in round one but now must be fleshed out to be a lot fancier, Might mean refining a subcomponent that was given a very simple That is going to call the bit I have working, ie, building up, or it Building out might mean turning to the thing Something going ASAP and then build out on functionality, which is to beĭistinguished from up/down. Working code at hand, so I think the classic Lisp/RAD/XP model is to get > (slime), or for that matter if it would be possible. > intriguing, and I was wondering if people have done this in lisp > sort of like an interactive, top-down development seems very > do the same with process-query, and finally it's all running. > query object available to look at and play with. > while they are implementing the db-query function there is a live > function, and then once implemented continue on. From there they can choose to implement the > Then they compile, and the debugger tells them that the function db. > function calls to do the work they need: > then manipulate it, they would create the function and write the > are writing some code that needs to lookup an item in a database and > the debugger take them where they need to be. > that they quite often develop in a sort of top down fashion, letting > I was talking with some smalltalking colleagues, and they were saying Redefine some functions in the debugger, and either redo the currentįorm or return, and let it call the new functions in the nextįinally, if you like smalltalk-like in-image development, you could So even if the error is not a function undefined error, you can Return :rt leave EVAL frame, prescribing the return values To the implementation, and then tell the restart to useĬlisp also has these restarts available as soon as there is an eval ), you could, while in the debugger,ĭefine the function as usual, in your source, and have slime send it When working with separate source files, instead of giving directly Implementation, even if you can add new restarts. I guess the restarts don't depend on slime, but on the New (FDEFINITION 'PROCESS-QUERY): #.(lambda (rows) "processes the rows" (block process-query (format t "~>) STORE-VALUE :R3 You may input a new value for (FDEFINITION 'PROCESS-QUERY). USE-VALUE :R1 You may input a value to be used instead of (FDEFINITION 'PROCESS-QUERY). *** - EVAL: undefined function PROCESS-QUERY New (FDEFINITION 'DB-QUERY): #.(lambda (query) "run the query and returns a list of row" (block db-query (return-from db-query (list (list 1 "Jane" "Doe" 55000.00) (list 3 "John" "Doe" 54000.00))))) STORE-VALUE :R3 You may input a new value for (FDEFINITION 'DB-QUERY). USE-VALUE :R1 You may input a value to be used instead of (FDEFINITION 'DB-QUERY). Where do you think those smalltalk designer guys got the idea from?Ĭ/USER1> (example "select * from employee") Wheeling, open-source hippy so I'd rather stick to open tools. Let you browse packages, refactor, inspect like in a smalltalkĮnvironment? I think lispworks might do this, but I'm a free. On a related note, are there any open source lisp environments that (slime), or for that matter if it would be possible. Intriguing, and I was wondering if people have done this in lisp Sort of like an interactive, top-down development seems very Once continuing theyĭo the same with process-query, and finally it's all running. Query object available to look at and play with. While they are implementing the db-query function there is a live ![]() From there they can choose to implement theįunction, and then once implemented continue on. ![]() Then they compile, and the debugger tells them that the function db. Then manipulate it, they would create the function and write the For example, if theyĪre writing some code that needs to lookup an item in a database and The debugger take them where they need to be. That they quite often develop in a sort of top down fashion, letting etc/profile.d/proxy.I was talking with some smalltalking colleagues, and they were saying #!/usr/bin/env bash # import proxy definition ] &.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |