From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ELisp futures and continuations/coroutines Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:17:51 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87wrhfa5gw.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87fwogaxzb.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87mxilezg8.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87boz0eov8.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87mxikrulm.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871uzw5asv.fsf@lifelogs.com> <878vu2ztua.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <20110519170354.3E15F13C514@vps1.kiwanami.net> <87wrhmuwwn.fsf@lifelogs.com> <20110520154909.A887513C4B5@vps1.kiwanami.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306289893 3433 80.91.229.12 (25 May 2011 02:18:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 02:18:13 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 25 04:18:08 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QP3fj-0002Te-O5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 04:18:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37537 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QP3fj-0004ss-8B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 22:18:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59975) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QP3fg-0004sh-9k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 22:18:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QP3ff-0002sy-BR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 22:18:04 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:35010) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QP3ff-0002sp-1u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 22:18:03 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QP3fd-0002QH-TJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 May 2011 04:18:01 +0200 Original-Received: from c-67-186-102-106.hsd1.il.comcast.net ([67.186.102.106]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 04:18:01 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by c-67-186-102-106.hsd1.il.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 04:18:01 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-67-186-102-106.hsd1.il.comcast.net X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:RrYRkNTST4TPJ9MLe9/56NgAGEY= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:139690 Archived-At: On Sat, 21 May 2011 00:49:09 +0900 SAKURAI Masashi wrote: SM> I employed the anaphoric macros to simulate the method chains in SM> conventional OOP languages or the "do" syntax in Haskell. I feel SM> that it is not so good too. I would learn the better ideas. Perhaps you can use macros to simplify things, so instead of (deferred:$ (deferred:url-retrieve "http://www.gnu.org") (deferred:nextc it (lambda (buf) (insert (with-current-buffer buf (buffer-string))) (kill-buffer buf)))) the user could say (when we're specifically working with URL retrieval) (deferred:do-url "http://www.gnu.org" ;; string implies url-retrieve ;; lambda implies "nextc it" so the following two are equivalent (lambda (buf) ...) (nextc it (lambda (buf) ...)) but this is just an idea. I don't mean to tell you how it should work and IMO it's usable as is. Other, more experienced Lisp programmers should tell you what they think because I'm just a beginner. Ted