From Phil Hagelberg to ~technomancy/fennel
Hey everybody! I'm heading home from a successful FennelConf 2019. Thanks to all the speakers who put a lot of work into the excellent talks, to Justin Smith for hosting us at our venue, and to Ken Restivo for helping set up an A/V streaming and recording arrangement. We were able to stream the talks as the conference happened, and three of the four talks were recorded. You can watch the videos at https://conf.fennel-lang.org. Looking forward to seeing you all next year! -Phil
From Phil Hagelberg to ~technomancy/fennel
Phil Hagelberg <phil@hagelb.org> writes: > I loaded the new version into EXO_encounter-667, which is my largest > Fennel codebase. It removed all but 3 unnecessary IIFEs (at least, those > 3 seemed unnecessary to me; maybe they in fact are needed.) Here are the IIFEs I saw; turns out there's 3: (let [layer (: map :addCustomLayer "player" 8)] (set layer.sprites [(unpack state.rovers)]) (tset layer.sprites 0 state.probe) (set layer.draw (partial draw.player world state))) ;; local function _0_(...)
From Phil Hagelberg to ~technomancy/fennel
Calvin Rose <calsrose@gmail.com> writes: > This is a heads up on some changes I have been working on for Fennel > having to do with code generation. Some discussion on IRC has been about > how the Fennel compiler (0.2.1) was generating anonymous functions that > are immediately called (IIFE, or Imediately Invoked Function Expression) > in many cases, even when not strictly necessary. Nice work! I only find the need to look at the compiled output increasingly rarely, but "too many IIFEs" was basically my only complaint about the readability when I did need to. I loaded the new version into EXO_encounter-667, which is my largest Fennel codebase. It removed all but 3 unnecessary IIFEs (at least, those
From Phil Hagelberg to ~technomancy/fennel
Hey folks. Yesterday Calvin just pushed out version 0.2.1 of Fennel, which fixed a few bugs we found right after the 0.2.0 release: * Add not= as an alias for ~= * Fix a bug with in-scope? which caused pattern matching outer unification to fail * Fix a bug with variadic ~= comparisons * Improve error reporting for mismatched delimiters Happy hacking! -Phil
From Phil Hagelberg to ~technomancy/fennel
Justin Smith <noisesmith@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 1:32 PM Jason Valencia <jasval@airmail.cc> wrote: >> >> Scheme has a concept of "named lets", essentially a let you can call >> from within itself, which is useful for recursion. >> >> R5RS [1]: >> > (let <variable> <bindings> <body>) > > so is this effectively (fn x [] ...) except x is only visible inside > the fn, and not to the surrounding environment? Yeah, I would say we already have this construct more or less. Is there
From Phil Hagelberg to ~technomancy/fennel
Phil Hagelberg <phil@hagelb.org> writes: > Any other ideas for what we might want to include in the next release? > Or questions about the above? A friend of mine is a debian developer who's considering packaging Fennel in the upcoming Debian Buster release, which has a freeze in a week or two. If we could cut a release of Fennel 0.2.0 it would make it easier for her to do this. Is there anything else that should be considered for the release? Calvin: I was assuming you'd want to do the release, but I can handle it
From Phil Hagelberg to ~technomancy/fennel
Calvin Rose <calsrose@gmail.com> writes: > In general, I think (-> x f g print) looks nicer than (-> x (f) (g) > (print)). Cool; I have no objection to this. I just wanted to make sure we merged it for the right reasons rather than just doing what Clojure does. -Phil
From Phil Hagelberg to ~technomancy/fennel
This splits up `require-macros' into two parts:
* The bit that loads the macro modules has been split into a helper
`loadMacros' function which is only concerned with that one job.
* Once we have a table of name/macro-function then we pass that to
`doMacro', which takes each of the macro functions, turns them into
specials, and inserts them into the specials for the given scope.
* doMacro can also be used on its own thru the new `macros' special
which simply takes a table that gets evaluated in compiler scope.
For instance, from the test suite:
[message trimmed]
From Phil Hagelberg to ~technomancy/fennel
There's been a lot of development on Fennel in the past few weeks! We're about due for another release before too long. We've got this already on master: * Add `match` macro for pattern matching * Add optional GNU readline support for repl * Fix a bug where runtime errors were not reported by launcher correctly * Allow repl to recover gracefully from parse errors * A man page With open work to implement these things: * Support key/value tables when destructuring * Quote and unquote
From Phil Hagelberg to ~technomancy/fennel
Slava Lopata <hayohayo@tuta.io> writes: > Yes, I see. This one is indeed very specific. Yet, I assume, even then > it may be less efficient than Lua's for with break/return? I can't think of a reason it should be; Lua has proper tail calls, so the recursion here basically compiles to a simple goto. > Interesting, thanks. Don't all current looping constructs are statements > though?.. (each), (for), (while). No, lisps don't have statements; these are simply expressions which return nil.