Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Alexander

#1
newLISP newS /
July 11, 2007, 11:52:34 PM
Thanks for clarification!


QuoteThere is no magic adapter. But there's quite a lot of newLISP code floating about to help you do without one.


Well, I understand that there is no magic at all :) I mean is there a kind of adapter, in other words a newLisp file which emulates a lot of general CommonLisp functions ("generic" Lisp functions?) such as most common car, cdr, defun. May be someone has such an adapter? There are a lot of samples which did not use overcomplicated facilities of CommonLisp and seems to be portable to newLisp (and other interpreter as well).

It's a pity if there is no simple way to reuse a lots of CommonLisp code.



Nevertheless, I'll try to deal with that in terms of my learning lisp :)



And one another question.



How can I include other lisp file if the lisp program is interpreted under newLisp compiler (just to reach compatibility in an interpreting in both CommonLisp and newLISP)?

I mean something like that:



// solution in C :)
#ifdef MY_COMPILER
#include "my_compiler_adapter.h"
#endif


Thanks!
#2
newLISP newS / Compability with CommonLisp?
July 11, 2007, 12:32:16 AM
Good day,



I have a big experience in C++, but I am very novice in Lisp programming, so I am sorry in advance for silly questions :)



I've two books dedicated to Lisp, but they are oriented to CommonLisp.

As far as I can see newLISP and CommonLisp a slightly different. I realize that we can imitate (defun) via (define) and so on, but is there a kind of "adapter" so I can use code for CommonLisp on newLISP compiler with only few changes?

Is there a sort of standard (like ANSI C/C++) for LISP interpreters? I mean documented functions, its behaviors, etc? Great variety of different LISP interpreters confuse me, though I understand that so creative people as creators of  lisp interpreters could not have the same points of view :)



With respect,

Alexander