/prog/ - XMLSCHEME

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-23 19:15



<define name="f">

 <lambda args="x">

  <multiply>

   <variable name="x" />

   <funccall func="f">

    <subtract>

     <variable name="x" />

     <int value="1" />

    </substract>

   </funccall>

  </multiply>

 </lambda>

</define>

IT WILL BRING PROGRAMMING TO A WHOLE NEW LEVEL!

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-23 19:38

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-23 19:46

Which brings the question again: Why do people still use XML when we have sexps?

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-23 19:49

>>3
because xml is poor man's sexpr.

Name: sage 2010-10-23 20:32

>>3
All those fucking parentheses

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-23 20:49

>>5
All those fucking angle brackets.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-23 23:12

>>6
Yeah but it's not so bad when you delimit them with strings of gibberish.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 0:19

>>3
because sexpr is poor man's xml.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 0:44

>>3
because xml is poor man's xml.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 4:02

XSL : XML SCHEME LISP

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 6:01

>>3
Because there's no way of distinguishing attributes from actual data.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 6:29

>>3
I agree with the use of sexp in more situations.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 7:14

What compiler/front end are you using that accepts <multiply> and <subtract> tags? Mine only takes <funccall> (equivalent to <apply>). I'd write it like this:



<define name="f">

 <lambda args="x">

  <apply func="*">

   <variable name="x" />

   <apply func="f">

    <apply func="-">

     <variable name="x" />

     <int value="1" />

    </apply>

   </apply>

  </apply>

 </lambda>

</define>

If the function the value of a sub-expression, leave out the func="..." part and the first sub expression is used as the function instead.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 7:17

>>13
With SGML all those </apply> closing tags could be changed to just </>.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 8:33

>>11



(tag '((:attribute "value") (:this "that"))

  (tag2 '((:another "attribute"))

             "I'm the content of tag2."))

could be the equivalent to



<tag attribute="value" this="that">

 <tag2 another="attribute">

  I'm the content of tag2.

 </tag2>

</tag>

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 8:36

>>13
I defined them as macros.

Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 11:34

>>11
The way you do attributes in SXML is with '@' i.e. (a (@ (href "www.google.com")) "Google")), since it is not a valid name in XML. In R6RS '@' is no longer allowed because it is ambiguous, so the wak libraries changed this to '^'.

XMLSCHEME

1 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-23 19:15

2 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-23 19:38

3 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-23 19:46

4 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-23 19:49

5 Name: sage 2010-10-23 20:32

6 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-23 20:49

7 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-23 23:12

8 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 0:19

9 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 0:44

10 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 4:02

11 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 6:01

12 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 6:29

13 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 7:14

14 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 7:17

15 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 8:33

16 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 8:36

17 Name: Anonymous 2010-10-24 11:34

19 Name: Anonymous 2011-02-02 23:35