Clojurians Log v2

hey, i expanded the languge. now it has a robust tabular and figlet directive that compiles down for format stings

also supports nested tables and figlet in tables https://github.com/danlentz/clj-figlet

I love this, thanks for sharing! I'm a fan (?) of CL's format from way back but the syntax has always been pretty hard to defend.

yeah format is pretty amazing but the format strings have always been a huge obstacle for me. hiccup is like second nature

Not to be confused with https://github.com/weavejester/cljfmt

i'm sorry i forgot to add examples of justification and logical blocks. Those are some of the best. doh.

I can't resist sharing my own collection of toy cl-format examples, which I put together a few years ago to share with colleagues at a former job: https://github.com/enaeher/cl-format-lunch-and-learn/blob/main/cl_format.clj. (No output in the file because I presented this interactively in a REPL.)

oh cool --i should add a word wrap example

I'm going to leave it as an exercise for the reader to implement DOOM with format string.

i'll include these in a new 0.1.1 release that adds #clojurescript support and #babashka testing

@enn

"~A~16T~A~28T~A~46T~A~%~14,,,'-A~16T~10,,,'-A~28T~16,,,'-A~46T~5,,,'-A~%~:{~A~16T~6,2F~28T~V~~46T~:*~D~%~}"

(clj-format nil
  ["Name" [:tab {:col 16}] "Value" [:tab {:col 28}] "Histogram" [:tab {:col 46}] "Count" :nl
   [:str {:width 14 :fill \-}] [:tab {:col 16}]
   [:str {:width 10 :fill \-}] [:tab {:col 28}]
   [:str {:width 16 :fill \-}] [:tab {:col 46}]
   [:str {:width 5 :fill \-}] :nl
   [:each {:from :sublists}
    :str [:tab {:col 16}]
    [:float {:width 6 :decimals 2}] [:tab {:col 28}]
    [:tilde {:count :V}] [:tab {:col 46}]
    :back :int :nl]]
  "" "" "" ""
  [["Alpha" 3.14 5]
   ["Beta" 12.0 2]
   ["Gamma" 98.5 9]
   ["Delta" 42.42 7]])

;; Name            Value       Histogram         Count
;; --------------  ----------  ----------------  -----
;; Alpha             3.14      ~~~~~             5
;; Beta             12.00      ~~                2
;; Gamma            98.50      ~~~~~~~~~         9
;; Delta            42.42      ~~~~~~~           7

i expanded your tabular data example

https://clojurians.slack.com/archives/C015AL9QYH1/p1776273044314079

ah m-expres, very cool. fyi this is superficially related to https://github.com/replikativ/superficie which I also ran into the other day. another take on alt-lisp syntax

Can't believe you did it

Thanks Claude

Nice

You have no excuse not to try now 🤣

Well, I think sexprs are strictly better... I'd be interesting in seeing where you can take this wrt eliminating more parens, while keeping the syntax macroable.

It's funny, IIRC, this isn't the first time infix/"normal syntax" has been fools joked... But to have one today, and have two evolutions of legit impls, that might even benefit from the impl of the april fools impl.... chef_kiss

I think all this is great syntax sugar to get people into lisp/clojure, so I'm not mad at it

Once they get into it, I think they'll more easily grok the parens

Or... people would able to use clojure without making themselves into parsers https://media1.tenor.com/m/ce1VXmViNMgAAAAd/dune-mentat.gif

Become the parser, Andriy. Be one with the form

You're a fool, Andriy! Turn back! Do not look behind the curtain!

Nah, man, I doubt you can pull it off but it's possible

maybe white space indentation? Have you thought about that? Has somebody done a python indentation treatment on sexprs?

Hordes of Paren-free-men are coming https://www.looper.com/img/gallery/dune-the-meaning-of-lisan-al-gaib-explained/what-lisan-al-gaib-means-in-the-dune-universe-1741978122.webp

the unwashed, unparened masses

"indentation treatment" I refuse to make humans count whitespaces

but people done it, schemers even accepted as a WISP or something

Well, you could make it a single space. The \newline is the point

ah hmm

I tried... notation gets "vertical" very fast. Would sell in the East, probably 🇯🇵

You need some way to discern application precedence for if(not(~test) do(~@body)) on the same line, right? Yeah, thought so, hmm.

You could make everything inline until it would violate your intended nesting and then use the next line as the escape hatch

And don't go vertical by default

But a fully inline solution would be better

maybe take back the comma?

it's a usable but ignored token in clojure

that is an interresting point, comma is not dead syntax, but may be claimed safely indeed!

if not ~test, do ~@body

and it looks good in psuedo code

maybe

semicolon is arguably claimable as well 😉

why go backward? Why not go forward? 🙂

// ?

It's a fun problem

I guess you can claim anything you want at your level... But because they're commas you could be pretty slopply about letting them fall back into clj code and it'll parse.

Are you going for two-way transformability like superficie?

Simply with M-exprs two way is hardly cahllenging, and a good quality test for implementation 😉

You start as lossless two-way, then you compromise and get two-way with normalisation, then you get one-way 🤷‍♂️

I might have to spike out one of these 🤔 Now you got me thinkin...

@john what would you say of Wolfram Language ?

I'm not too versed in it. I've explored it. My understanding is that it's basically a lisp and he's got a macro system in there.

IIRC I've seen him say it's his take on mxpers

It is M-exprs with Infix, and Prefix, and Postfix on the top. He actually nailed it

Elixer is a ml take on macros too. The code is data. Pretty cool mix on it.

He nailed it, and yet I'd prefer to use it from wolframite... It might be subjective between the two, from a syntax perspective

I was never a huge fan of arithmetic syntax anyway... It honestly confuses me way more than prefix.

It's just a holdover from accidental notations humans used to communicate together. Accidental, arbitrary ording rules. I prefer explicit.

There is (almost) no bug or misreading in Perl or Java that you don't solve by inserting parentheses to clarify the order in which you want infix things done. Parentheses are, in general, unavoidable. The question is whether you plug them in upfront or wait to be reprimanded.

COBOL really got it right with ADD 9 TO X GIVING Z. There was also (wasn't there?) a more general COMPUTE but it was the beginning of the end for COBOL

I tink we are conflating infix notation and (Precedence & grouping)

The "cell formula" with multiple operations is also a key reason why Excel has failed in the marketplace

I cheerfully conflate those two things

Isn't Elixir's pipeline |> just an infix operator ?

I'm not too familiar, it's been a while for me with Elixir

I thought operators were inherently infix. Clojure doesn't have any operator for example. In Clojure + is a function. But if you make it infix it becomes an operator.

I just conflate all functions as operators in the prefix position

Does operater mean params must be on both sides?

++

operator ~ form ?

looks like lisps don't have operators 🤷‍♂️

condition ? true-branch : false-branch ; // ternary operator

That's the key. Functions alone are strictly simpler than functions-and-operators. And higher-order functions are simple while higher-order operators would be a puzzle!

I don't think it's necessarily binary, but it kind of only makes sense in infix, otherwise an operator is just a function.

Like say you have the merge function. Even in infix you'd do: merge(a, b) But if you turn it into an operator you could do: a merge b