Re: [9fans] and now for something completely different

Re: [9fans] and now for something completely different

[Russ Cox]

but there's no xyzzy<enter><right shift> cheat code!

Re: [9fans] And now for something completely different...

[boyd]

but i thought it was the goats who ran the standards committees ...

[9fans] And now for something completely different...

[Skip Tavakkolian]

http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2002/02/25/ashcroft.sings.wbtv.med.html

If we could only get a video of him singing in a Karaoke bar, with a
goat on his lap!  That might also work for people on standard committees.

Re: [9fans] and now for something completely different

[okamoto]

Does it support 32 bit color depth?

Kenji

Re: [9fans] and now for something completely different

[andrey mirtchovski]

> but there's no xyzzy<enter><right shift> cheat code!

it wasn't in the minesweeper RFC i used :(

[9fans] and now for something completely different

[andrey mirtchovski]

hi,

i rewrote Charles Forsyth's minesweeper for release 3 (it now uses
control(2))

you can grab it from:
http://www.acl.lanl.gov/plan9/minesweeper/

as usual, i botched the implementation and the code is not very pretty
to look at.

enjoy, if you like such things :)

andrey

[9fans] and now, for something completely different...

[schwartz+9fans]

"Tom Duff" <td@pixar.com> writes:
| `More quirky than common lisp'?  Is that possible?

Unfortunately, yes.  RnRS defines such a small language that every
implementation instantly diverges from every other.

[9fans] and now, for something completely different...

[Tom]

On Feb 1, 10:24pm, schwartz+9fans@bio.cse.psu.edu ( ) ( ) wrote:
> Some of the small scheme interpreters port pretty easily.  (They're
> less functional and more quirky than common lisp, of course.)
`More quirky than common lisp'?  Is that possible?

-- 
Tom Duff, KF6LWB.  Gort!  Klaatu barada ... uhh ... uhh ...

[9fans] and now, for something completely different...

[elliott]

schwartz+9fans@bio.cse.psu.edu wrote:
> 
> Kazumi Iwane <iwane@lit.rd.nttdata.co.jp> writes:
> | Oops. Hugs is not a lisp/scheme interpreter, but it's
> | a haskell interpreter. Sorry.
> 
> Close enough. :-)
> What sort of changes were required?

Either hack out the disgusting misuse of #if or use APE. Run mk and wait
until the compiler stops with an error about running out of registers
(IIRC), break the multi-line deeply-nested return statement in two (i.e.
do half the work into a temporary, then return the rest of the expr
using the temporary) and mk again. I think there are only a couple of
places where you have to do this. You might want to edit the nasty
terminal-handling stuff too (i.e. strip it all out). I hacked 8&frac12;
to let me read the window width in characters (I used lucida sans
typewriter, so it made sense for me) so that the output routines knew
where to word wrap. I'm not sure it was worth it.

Anyway, in short, it's dead easy. Particularly if you use ape.

-- 
Elliott Hughes - GeneData AG, Postfach 254, CH-4016 Basel, Switzerland
mailto:elliott.hughes@genedata.com  http://users.ch.genedata.com/~enh/

[9fans] and now, for something completely different...

[schwartz+9fans]

Kazumi Iwane <iwane@lit.rd.nttdata.co.jp> writes:
| Oops. Hugs is not a lisp/scheme interpreter, but it's
| a haskell interpreter. Sorry.

Close enough. :-) 
What sort of changes were required?  

[9fans] and now, for something completely different...

[ozan]

i suspect you would find most lisp interpreters to be portable across
unix systems for various architectures, but fewer of them would port to
other OSs. [i remember an early version of kyoto common lisp ported to
vms no less, and heard ibm 370 was mentioned too. presumably, it would
port to p9 in a day... :)]

if you use "lisp" to mean something more general than common lisp, you
may want to try various scheme implementations. [i know kernighan used
Matthias's "vscm" recently in his "Trials of Timing" paper; it is a clean
and compact scheme, and may have been already ported to p9.] see the scheme
repository: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/scheme-repository for many
implementations to chose from.

oz (a schemer)

[9fans] and now, for something completely different...

[Kazumi]

Oops. Hugs is not a lisp/scheme interpreter, but it's
a haskell interpreter. Sorry.

In message <199802020413.AA076682805@kinski.lit.rd.nttdata.co.jp>, 
	I write:
> I ported hugs (ver.1.3?) to plan9 and it was almost o.k.
> ...

[9fans] and now, for something completely different...

[Kazumi]

I ported hugs (ver.1.3?) to plan9 and it was almost o.k.
The code made heavy use of macro and "lisp-like" calling
style, such as

    val = f(g(h(i(j(k(arg))))));

8c choked at a few places like the above with the diag
message "out of fixed registers". Creating intermediate
temporaries made the compiler happy.

In message <19980202032406.16281.qmail@bio.cse.psu.edu>, 
  <schwartz+9fans@bio.cse.psu.edu> writes:
>"Russ Cox" <rsc@plan9.bell-labs.com> writes:
>| has anyone written/ported a lisp interpreter for/to plan9?
>
>Some of the small scheme interpreters port pretty easily.  (They're
>less functional and more quirky than common lisp, of course.)

[9fans] and now, for something completely different...

[schwartz+9fans]

"Russ Cox" <rsc@plan9.bell-labs.com> writes:
| has anyone written/ported a lisp interpreter for/to plan9?

Some of the small scheme interpreters port pretty easily.  (They're
less functional and more quirky than common lisp, of course.)

[9fans] and now, for something completely different...

[Russ]

has anyone written/ported a lisp
interpreter for/to plan9?

i've begun (and stopped) the port of a couple of
the lisp packages out there (clisp, gcl, ...)
but they're not quite as "portable" as they
purport to be.

russ