The Nature of Lisp (2006)

Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by kazinator on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @03:25PM (#9578597)

I would say there are too many distracting "tags" in that which may be unnecessary ("XML disease"). For instance, look how you just indicated with a tag that the elements of a list are "items". In Lisp!

   (todo "name" (item ...) (item ...) (item ...)).

Basically the symbol todo is enough of a clue about the structure, and the pure syntax can determine most of the rest, with possibly a modicum of keywords here and there.

  (todo housework  ;; symbols for naming!
    (:high "Clean the house")
    (:medium "Wash the dishes")
    (:medium "Buy more soap"))

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Nature of Lisp (2006) by draegtun on Wednesday May 20, 2015 @03:58PM (#9578855)

I was thinking the same but using Rebol:

  todo [
      housework
      high: "Clean the house"
      medium: "Wash the dishes"
      medium: "Buy more soap"
  ]

And this is so easy to validate & use via the parse dialect that comes with Rebol.

Here's a validation example:

  todo-rule: [
      set task-name word!
      some [
          set item-priority set-word!
          set item-desc string!
      ]
  ]

  >> parse [bad] todo-rule
  == false
 
  >> parse [incomplete high:] todo-rule
  == false
 
  >> parse [incorrect high: "item1" "erggh!"] todo-rule
  == false
 
  >> parse [housework high: "foo" medium: "bar" medium: "baz"] todo-rule    
  == true

[ Parent | on HN ]