<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for On Scheme</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pschombe.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pschombe.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Scheme and teaching Scheme</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:27:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Why Scheme Shouldn’t Have An Official Object System by vsync</title>
		<link>http://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/04/03/why-scheme-shouldn%e2%80%99t-have-an-official-object-system/#comment-6648</link>
		<dc:creator>vsync</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/04/03/why-scheme-shouldn%e2%80%99t-have-an-official-object-system/#comment-6648</guid>
		<description>The issue of conflicting slot names in CLOS is less of an issue than one might think, given that slot names are symbols and each package should be defining its own namespace.  The FOO and BAR packages might both subclass BAZ and define a QUUX slot, but those slots will actually be named FOO:QUUX and BAR:QUUX respectively and so not conflict.

A convention for accessors I find useful to follow is CLASS-SLOT, where CLASS is the class at the level I&#039;m defining the accessor, not some ancestor superclass that might be called the &quot;base class&quot;.  So if my BAZ subclasses were called FOOMATIC and BARMATIC, FOOMATIC-QUUX and BARMATIC-QUUX.  If I then subclass either of those it&#039;s apparent where the accessors are derived from.  In the case of conflicts, it also allows me to USE both packages without issues or ambiguity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The issue of conflicting slot names in CLOS is less of an issue than one might think, given that slot names are symbols and each package should be defining its own namespace.  The FOO and BAR packages might both subclass BAZ and define a QUUX slot, but those slots will actually be named FOO:QUUX and BAR:QUUX respectively and so not conflict.</p>
<p>A convention for accessors I find useful to follow is CLASS-SLOT, where CLASS is the class at the level I&#8217;m defining the accessor, not some ancestor superclass that might be called the &#8220;base class&#8221;.  So if my BAZ subclasses were called FOOMATIC and BARMATIC, FOOMATIC-QUUX and BARMATIC-QUUX.  If I then subclass either of those it&#8217;s apparent where the accessors are derived from.  In the case of conflicts, it also allows me to USE both packages without issues or ambiguity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Convincing Programmers They Want To Use Lisp by Arturo Mieussens</title>
		<link>http://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/04/07/convincing-programmers-they-want-to-use-lisp/#comment-6645</link>
		<dc:creator>Arturo Mieussens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/04/07/convincing-programmers-they-want-to-use-lisp/#comment-6645</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s been a long time since this conversation was active, but I&#039;ve been thinking of something lately and would like your opinions.


We have this well known ugly code:

(define (f x y)
(let ((a (+ 1 (* x y)))
(b (- 1 y)))
(+ (* x (square a))
(* y b)
(* a b))))

Scary, but what if we do some indentation?

(define (f x y)
     (let ((a (+ 1 (* x y)))
            (b (- 1 y)))
            (+ (* x (square a))
             (* y b)
            (* a b))))

Better, but I&#039;ll need to count parenthesis to really understand what&#039;s going on. What if we align parenthesis vertically?, at least that way I&#039;ll know what&#039;s inside of what.

(define (f x y)
   (let
    (
      (a (+ 1 (* x y)))
      (b (- 1 y))
    )
    (+
      (* x (square a)) 
      (* y b)
       (* a b)
    )
  )
)

Ok, that&#039;s much more like what I&#039;m used to.

But, there&#039;s potential for DRYing this up, as we have parenthesis and indentation doing the same thing, why not just use one or the other?

define (f x y)
   let       
      a (+ 1 (* x y))
      b (- 1 y)
    +
      * x (square a)
       * y b 
      * a b

Now that&#039;s something I like, almost Rubysh... there&#039;s the prefix notation thing, but I actually like that.
The best part is that nothing is changed, only indentation when used substitutes parenthesis, and translation to standard lisp notation is done mechanically following a couple of rules.

What do you think?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s been a long time since this conversation was active, but I&#8217;ve been thinking of something lately and would like your opinions.</p>
<p>We have this well known ugly code:</p>
<p>(define (f x y)<br />
(let ((a (+ 1 (* x y)))<br />
(b (- 1 y)))<br />
(+ (* x (square a))<br />
(* y b)<br />
(* a b))))</p>
<p>Scary, but what if we do some indentation?</p>
<p>(define (f x y)<br />
     (let ((a (+ 1 (* x y)))<br />
            (b (- 1 y)))<br />
            (+ (* x (square a))<br />
             (* y b)<br />
            (* a b))))</p>
<p>Better, but I&#8217;ll need to count parenthesis to really understand what&#8217;s going on. What if we align parenthesis vertically?, at least that way I&#8217;ll know what&#8217;s inside of what.</p>
<p>(define (f x y)<br />
   (let<br />
    (<br />
      (a (+ 1 (* x y)))<br />
      (b (- 1 y))<br />
    )<br />
    (+<br />
      (* x (square a)) <br />
      (* y b)<br />
       (* a b)<br />
    )<br />
  )<br />
)</p>
<p>Ok, that&#8217;s much more like what I&#8217;m used to.</p>
<p>But, there&#8217;s potential for DRYing this up, as we have parenthesis and indentation doing the same thing, why not just use one or the other?</p>
<p>define (f x y)<br />
   let<br />
      a (+ 1 (* x y))<br />
      b (- 1 y)<br />
    +<br />
      * x (square a)<br />
       * y b <br />
      * a b</p>
<p>Now that&#8217;s something I like, almost Rubysh&#8230; there&#8217;s the prefix notation thing, but I actually like that.<br />
The best part is that nothing is changed, only indentation when used substitutes parenthesis, and translation to standard lisp notation is done mechanically following a couple of rules.</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on About by Vijay</title>
		<link>http://pschombe.wordpress.com/about/#comment-6637</link>
		<dc:creator>Vijay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:56:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/about/#comment-6637</guid>
		<description>I meant probably ... :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I meant probably &#8230; <img src='http://s.wordpress.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on About by Vijay</title>
		<link>http://pschombe.wordpress.com/about/#comment-6636</link>
		<dc:creator>Vijay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:55:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/about/#comment-6636</guid>
		<description>I am a Scheme programmer and robably you will find my blog interesting! (http://vijaymathew.wordpress.com/)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a Scheme programmer and robably you will find my blog interesting! (<a href="http://vijaymathew.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">http://vijaymathew.wordpress.com/</a>)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A Type System for Scheme by andry</title>
		<link>http://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/03/18/a-type-system-for-scheme/#comment-6634</link>
		<dc:creator>andry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 18:26:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/03/18/a-type-system-for-scheme/#comment-6634</guid>
		<description>iwB0sA comment3 ,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>iwB0sA comment3 ,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Lisp Without Parentheses by Aliplyclearia</title>
		<link>http://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/04/16/lisp-without-parentheses/#comment-6631</link>
		<dc:creator>Aliplyclearia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 06:19:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/04/16/lisp-without-parentheses/#comment-6631</guid>
		<description>Think about it… Are you encouraging my   jocular  synthesis  Sorry, for off top, i wanna tell one joke)   What lies at the bottom of the ocean and twitches? A nervous wreck.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Think about it… Are you encouraging my   jocular  synthesis  Sorry, for off top, i wanna tell one joke)   What lies at the bottom of the ocean and twitches? A nervous wreck.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Watch Me Beg For Money by Paul</title>
		<link>http://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/05/01/watch-me-beg-for-money/#comment-6630</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/05/01/watch-me-beg-for-money/#comment-6630</guid>
		<description>If you can make a donation now, thank you in advance!

I have an amazing story for all of you.

It is not your ordinary Medical ID theft story when a patient gets brain surgery using my name-but also when the patient&#039;s 

family shows up at the hospital and pretends to be my family!

The Police in Los Angeles can’t believe it. The Police in New York can’t believe it. Private Investigators think it’s a very 

tall tale. The police report has numerous spots of ‘White Out’ on it before it even ever got to me.

So over the next few weeks, I will show you how I went completely broke through no fault of my own and how this can happen to 

you. It has probably cost me over $250,000 to date.

If you can donate to me, that would be great. If you are just curious, please keep keep track of my on going story on my 

blog.

Thank you in advance for your contributions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you can make a donation now, thank you in advance!</p>
<p>I have an amazing story for all of you.</p>
<p>It is not your ordinary Medical ID theft story when a patient gets brain surgery using my name-but also when the patient&#8217;s </p>
<p>family shows up at the hospital and pretends to be my family!</p>
<p>The Police in Los Angeles can’t believe it. The Police in New York can’t believe it. Private Investigators think it’s a very </p>
<p>tall tale. The police report has numerous spots of ‘White Out’ on it before it even ever got to me.</p>
<p>So over the next few weeks, I will show you how I went completely broke through no fault of my own and how this can happen to </p>
<p>you. It has probably cost me over $250,000 to date.</p>
<p>If you can donate to me, that would be great. If you are just curious, please keep keep track of my on going story on my </p>
<p>blog.</p>
<p>Thank you in advance for your contributions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Convincing Programmers They Want To Use Lisp by SOG knives</title>
		<link>http://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/04/07/convincing-programmers-they-want-to-use-lisp/#comment-6629</link>
		<dc:creator>SOG knives</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:56:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/04/07/convincing-programmers-they-want-to-use-lisp/#comment-6629</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;SOG knives...&lt;/strong&gt;

Interesting ideas... I wonder how the Hollywood media would portray this?...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>SOG knives&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Interesting ideas&#8230; I wonder how the Hollywood media would portray this?&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Objects, Messages, Scheme by Andreas Erickson</title>
		<link>http://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/03/19/objects-messages-scheme/#comment-6628</link>
		<dc:creator>Andreas Erickson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 01:03:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/03/19/objects-messages-scheme/#comment-6628</guid>
		<description>direly mnemonic burlap counterpoint enriching diastasic stite gopherberry
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.butterfieldlumber.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Butterfield Lumber&lt;/a&gt;
 http://www.armorytrack.com/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>direly mnemonic burlap counterpoint enriching diastasic stite gopherberry<br />
<a href="http://www.butterfieldlumber.com/" rel="nofollow">Butterfield Lumber</a><br />
 <a href="http://www.armorytrack.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.armorytrack.com/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A Type System For Scheme, Part 4 by Raoul Duke</title>
		<link>http://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/03/28/a-type-system-for-scheme-part-4/#comment-6627</link>
		<dc:creator>Raoul Duke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:07:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://pschombe.wordpress.com/2006/03/28/a-type-system-for-scheme-part-4/#comment-6627</guid>
		<description>how about (old, old) PreScheme?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>how about (old, old) PreScheme?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
