development release newLISP v.9.3.11
development release newLISP v.9.3.11
• a fix for 'push' and other bugfixes
• new functions for customizing newLISP's interactive shell
• better HTTP request pre-processing
for files and changes notes: http://www.newlisp.org/download/development
• new functions for customizing newLISP's interactive shell
• better HTTP request pre-processing
for files and changes notes: http://www.newlisp.org/download/development
A Debian installer package made and tested on UBUNTU Linux, v8.04 has been added for the 9.3.11 newLISP development rlelease: http://www.newlisp.org/download/development
-
- Posts: 2038
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:28 pm
- Location: latiitude 50N longitude 3W
- Contact:
Great! Thanks for the new functions. These look really useful.
By the way - MacOS X users may have to remove the newlisp package from the /Library/Receipts folder:
Cool!
An obvious error that I made was to supply an expression:
Although it's the wrong thing to do, some idiot like me will do it.
Like the manual too! Looks like you've got it sorted... :)
By the way - MacOS X users may have to remove the newlisp package from the /Library/Receipts folder:
I've just started playing with prompt-event:You cannot install newLISP 9.3.11 on this volume. A newer version of this software already exists on this volume.
Code: Select all
> (prompt-event date)
$prompt-event
Mon Apr 28 14:28:30 2008_
An obvious error that I made was to supply an expression:
Code: Select all
> (prompt-event (string (date) ": "))
ERR: invalid parameter : (string (date))
... loops for ever?
Like the manual too! Looks like you've got it sorted... :)
click on "uninstall" in the disk image, it will remove the receipt for you.You cannot install newLISP 9.3.11 on this volume. A newer version of this software already exists on this volume.
not at all ;-), you can supply an expression, but it must be enclosed in a function:An obvious error that I made was to supply an expression:
Code: Select all
(prompt-event (fn () (string (date) ": ")))
(sys-info) is documented as follows:
Peter
However:0 - Number of LISP cells
1 - Maximum number of LISP cells constant
2 - Number of symbols
3 - Evaluation/recursion level
4 - Environment stack level
5 - Maximum call stack constant
6 - Pid of running newLISP process
8 - Version number as an integer constant
9 - Operating system constant
BTW: why was the numbering shifted? Previously (sys-info 6) returned the newLisp version.newLISP v.9.3.11 on Linux IPv4, execute 'newlisp -h' for more info.
> (sys-info 0)
369
> (sys-info 1)
268435456
> (sys-info 3)
1
> (sys-info 4)
0
> (sys-info 5)
2048
> (sys-info 6)
2782
> (sys-info 7)
9311
> (sys-info 8)
1
> (sys-info 9)
ERR: list index out of bounds in function sys-info
Peter
-
- Posts: 2038
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:28 pm
- Location: latiitude 50N longitude 3W
- Contact:
From an older thread:
Perhaps the version is too useful and important to be just another field. Like 'ostype', could it be a 'variable' as well?
cormullion wrote:I just noticed that some of my code now credits newLISP version 5239 or similar, instead of 9300... :))
Has (sys-info) changed such that asking for the version now returns the PID... I know it's changed in the development releases, but didn't realise that all existing uses might return different numbers...
Is this going to stay - will I have to change all existing code that relies on this?
This contract is probably stated in the manual now ... :)lutz wrote:There is an unstated (until today) contract that new stuff in 'sys-info' will always be inserted somewhere before the last 2 values, which are also the only static once in all the list for the same newlisp executable or library.
If you use (sys-info -2) for your version number and (sys-info -1) for the compile flavor (libray, UTF-8, IPv6), you are safe for all past, present and future versions.
Perhaps the version is too useful and important to be just another field. Like 'ostype', could it be a 'variable' as well?