git mv src/content/* src/content/en/

3 files changed, 0 insertions, 345 deletions

diff --git a/src/content/tils/2021/04/24/cl-generic-precedence.adoc b/src/content/tils/2021/04/24/cl-generic-precedence.adoc
deleted file mode 100644
index 541afb0..0000000
--- a/src/content/tils/2021/04/24/cl-generic-precedence.adoc
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,149 +0,0 @@
-= Common Lisp argument precedence order parameterization of a generic function
-
-When CLOS dispatches a method, it picks the most specific method definition to
-the argument list:
-
-[source,lisp]
-----
-
-* (defgeneric a-fn (x))
-#<STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION A-FN (0) {5815ACB9}>
-
-* (defmethod a-fn (x) :default-method)
-#<STANDARD-METHOD A-FN (T) {581DB535}>
-
-* (defmethod a-fn ((x number)) :a-number)
-#<STANDARD-METHOD A-FN (NUMBER) {58241645}>
-
-* (defmethod a-fn ((x (eql 1))) :number-1)
-#<STANDARD-METHOD A-FN ((EQL 1)) {582A7D75}>
-
-* (a-fn nil)
-:DEFAULT-METHOD
-
-* (a-fn "1")
-:DEFAULT-METHOD
-
-* (a-fn 0)
-:A-NUMBER
-
-* (a-fn 1)
-:NUMBER-1
-----
-
-CLOS uses a similar logic when choosing the method from parent classes, when
-multiple ones are available:
-
-[source,lisp]
-----
-* (defclass class-a () ())
-
-#<STANDARD-CLASS CLASS-A {583E0B25}>
-* (defclass class-b () ())
-
-#<STANDARD-CLASS CLASS-B {583E7F6D}>
-* (defgeneric another-fn (obj))
-
-#<STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION ANOTHER-FN (0) {583DA749}>
-* (defmethod another-fn ((obj class-a)) :class-a)
-; Compiling LAMBDA (.PV-CELL. .NEXT-METHOD-CALL. OBJ):
-; Compiling Top-Level Form:
-
-#<STANDARD-METHOD ANOTHER-FN (CLASS-A) {584523C5}>
-* (defmethod another-fn ((obj class-b)) :class-b)
-; Compiling LAMBDA (.PV-CELL. .NEXT-METHOD-CALL. OBJ):
-; Compiling Top-Level Form:
-
-#<STANDARD-METHOD ANOTHER-FN (CLASS-B) {584B8895}>
-----
-
-Given the above definitions, when inheriting from `class-a` and `class-b`, the
-order of inheritance matters:
-
-[source,lisp]
-----
-* (defclass class-a-coming-first (class-a class-b) ())
-#<STANDARD-CLASS CLASS-A-COMING-FIRST {584BE6AD}>
-
-* (defclass class-b-coming-first (class-b class-a) ())
-#<STANDARD-CLASS CLASS-B-COMING-FIRST {584C744D}>
-
-* (another-fn (make-instance 'class-a-coming-first))
-:CLASS-A
-
-* (another-fn (make-instance 'class-b-coming-first))
-:CLASS-B
-----
-
-Combining the order of inheritance with generic functions with multiple
-arguments, CLOS has to make a choice of how to pick a method given two competing
-definitions, and its default strategy is prioritizing from left to right:
-
-[source,lisp]
-----
-* (defgeneric yet-another-fn (obj1 obj2))
-#<STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION YET-ANOTHER-FN (0) {584D9EC9}>
-
-* (defmethod yet-another-fn ((obj1 class-a) obj2) :first-arg-specialized)
-#<STANDARD-METHOD YET-ANOTHER-FN (CLASS-A T) {5854269D}>
-
-* (defmethod yet-another-fn (obj1 (obj2 class-b)) :second-arg-specialized)
-#<STANDARD-METHOD YET-ANOTHER-FN (T CLASS-B) {585AAAAD}>
-
-* (yet-another-fn (make-instance 'class-a) (make-instance 'class-b))
-:FIRST-ARG-SPECIALIZED
-----
-
-CLOS has to make a choice between the first and the second definition of
-`yet-another-fn`, but its choice is just a heuristic.  What if we want the
-choice to be based on the second argument, instead of the first?
-
-For that, we use the `:argument-precedence-order` option when declaring a
-generic function:
-
-[source,lisp]
-----
-* (defgeneric yet-another-fn (obj1 obj2) (:argument-precedence-order obj2 obj1))
-#<STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION YET-ANOTHER-FN (2) {584D9EC9}>
-
-* (yet-another-fn (make-instance 'class-a) (make-instance 'class-b))
-:SECOND-ARG-SPECIALIZED
-----
-
-I liked that the `:argument-precedence-order` option exists.  We shouldn't have
-to change the arguments from `(obj1 obj2)` to `(obj2 obj1)` just to make CLOS
-pick the method that we want.  We can configure its default behaviour if
-desired, and keep the order of arguments however it best fits the generic
-function.
-
-== Comparison with Clojure
-
-Clojure has an equivalent, when using `defmulti`.
-
-Since when declaring a multi-method with `defmulti` we must define the dispatch
-function, Clojure uses it to pick the method definition.  Since the dispatch
-function is required, there is no need for a default behaviour, such as
-left-to-right.
-
-== Conclusion
-
-Making the argument precedence order configurable for generic functions but not
-for class definitions makes a lot of sense.
-
-When declaring a class, we can choose the precedence order, and that is about
-it.  But when defining a generic function, the order of arguments is more
-important to the function semantics, and the argument precedence being
-left-to-right is just the default behaviour.
-
-One shouldn't change the order of arguments of a generic function for the sake
-of tailoring it to the CLOS priority ranking algorithm, but doing it for a class
-definition is just fine.
-
-TIL.
-
-== References
-
-:clos-wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-Oriented_Programming_in_Common_Lisp
-
-. {clos-wiki}[Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp: A Programmer's Guide
-  to CLOS], by Sonja E. Keene
diff --git a/src/content/tils/2021/04/24/clojure-autocurry.adoc b/src/content/tils/2021/04/24/clojure-autocurry.adoc
deleted file mode 100644
index a2c2835..0000000
--- a/src/content/tils/2021/04/24/clojure-autocurry.adoc
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,135 +0,0 @@
-= Clojure auto curry
-:sort: 1
-:updatedat: 2021-04-27
-
-:defcurry-orig: https://lorettahe.github.io/clojure/2016/09/22/clojure-auto-curry
-
-Here's a simple macro defined by {defcurry-orig}[Loretta He] to create Clojure
-functions that are curried on all arguments, relying on Clojure's multi-arity
-support:
-
-[source,clojure]
-----
-(defmacro defcurry
-  [name args & body]
-  (let [partials (map (fn [n]
-                        `(~(subvec args 0 n) (partial ~name ~@(take n args))))
-                      (range 1 (count args)))]
-    `(defn ~name
-       (~args ~@body)
-       ~@partials)))
-----
-
-A naive `add` definition, alongside its usage and macroexpansion:
-
-[source,clojure]
-----
-user=> (defcurry add
-         [a b c d e]
-         (+ 1 2 3 4 5))
-#'user/add
-
-user=> (add 1)
-#object[clojure.core$partial$fn__5857 0x2c708440 "clojure.core$partial$fn__5857@2c708440"]
-
-user=> (add 1 2 3 4)
-#object[clojure.core$partial$fn__5863 0xf4c0e4e "clojure.core$partial$fn__5863@f4c0e4e"]
-
-user=> ((add 1) 2 3 4 5)
-15
-
-user=> (((add 1) 2 3) 4 5)
-15
-
-user=> (use 'clojure.pprint)
-nil
-
-user=> (pprint
-        (macroexpand
-         '(defcurry add
-            [a b c d e]
-            (+ 1 2 3 4 5))))
-(def
- add
- (clojure.core/fn
-  ([a b c d e] (+ 1 2 3 4 5))
-  ([a] (clojure.core/partial add a))
-  ([a b] (clojure.core/partial add a b))
-  ([a b c] (clojure.core/partial add a b c))
-  ([a b c d] (clojure.core/partial add a b c d))))
-nil
-----
-
-This simplistic `defcurry` definition doesn't support optional parameters,
-multi-arity, `&` rest arguments, docstrings, etc., but it could certainly evolve
-to do so.
-
-I like how `defcurry` is so short, and abdicates the responsability of doing the
-multi-arity logic to Clojure's built-in multi-arity support.  Simple and
-elegant.
-
-Same Clojure as before, now with auto-currying via macros.
-
-== Comparison with Common Lisp
-
-My attempt at writing an equivalent for Common Lisp gives me:
-
-[source,lisp]
-----
-(defun partial (fn &rest args)
-  (lambda (&rest args2)
-    (apply fn (append args args2))))
-
-(defun curry-n (n func)
-  (cond ((< n 0) (error "Too many arguments"))
-        ((zerop n) (funcall func))
-        (t (lambda (&rest rest)
-             (curry-n (- n (length rest))
-                      (apply #'partial func rest))))))
-
-(defmacro defcurry (name args &body body)
-  `(defun ,name (&rest rest)
-     (let ((func (lambda ,args ,@body)))
-       (curry-n (- ,(length args) (length rest))
-                (apply #'partial func rest)))))
-----
-
-Without built-in multi-arity support, we have to do more work, like tracking the
-number of arguments consumed so far.  We also have to write `#'partial`
-ourselves.  That is, without dependending on any library, sticking to ANSI
-Common Lisp.
-
-The usage is pretty similar:
-
-[source,lisp]
-----
-* (defcurry add (a b c d e)
-    (+ a b c d e))
-ADD
-
-* (add 1)
-#<FUNCTION (LAMBDA (&REST REST) :IN CURRY-N) {100216419B}>
-
-* (funcall (add 1) 2 3 4)
-#<FUNCTION (LAMBDA (&REST REST) :IN CURRY-N) {100216537B}>
-
-* (funcall (add 1) 2 3 4 5)
-15
-
-* (funcall (funcall (add 1) 2 3) 4 5)
-15
-
-* (macroexpand-1
-    '(defcurry add (a b c d e)
-       (+ a b c d e)))
-(DEFUN ADD (&REST REST)
-  (LET ((FUNC (LAMBDA (A B C D E) (+ A B C D E))))
-    (CURRY-N (- 5 (LENGTH REST)) (APPLY #'PARTIAL FUNC REST))))
-T
-----
-
-This also require `funcall`s, since we return a `lambda` that doesn't live in
-the function namespace.
-
-Like the Clojure one, it doesn't support optional parameters, `&rest` rest
-arguments, docstrings, etc., but it also could evolve to do so.
diff --git a/src/content/tils/2021/04/24/scm-nif.adoc b/src/content/tils/2021/04/24/scm-nif.adoc
deleted file mode 100644
index 2ea8a6f..0000000
--- a/src/content/tils/2021/04/24/scm-nif.adoc
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,61 +0,0 @@
-= Three-way conditional for number signs on Lisp
-:categories: lisp scheme common-lisp
-:sort: 2
-:updatedat: 2021-08-14
-
-:on-lisp: https://www.paulgraham.com/onlisptext.html
-:sicp: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/sicp/index.html
-
-A useful macro from Paul Graham's {on-lisp}[On Lisp] book:
-
-[source,lisp]
-----
-(defmacro nif (expr pos zero neg)
-  (let ((g (gensym)))
-    `(let ((,g ,expr))
-       (cond ((plusp ,g) ,pos)
-             ((zerop ,g) ,zero)
-             (t ,neg)))))
-----
-
-After I looked at this macro, I started seeing opportunities to using it in many
-places, and yet I didn't see anyone else using it.
-
-The latest example I can think of is section 1.3.3 of {sicp}[Structure and
-Interpretation of Computer Programs], which I was reading recently:
-
-[source,scheme]
-----
-(define (search f neg-point pos-point)
-  (let ((midpoint (average neg-point pos-point)))
-    (if (close-enough? neg-point post-point)
-        midpoint
-        (let ((test-value (f midpoint)))
-          (cond ((positive? test-value)
-                 (search f neg-point midpoint))
-                ((negative? test-value)
-                 (search f midpoint pos-point))
-                (else midpoint))))))
-----
-
-Not that the book should introduce such macro this early, but I couldn't avoid
-feeling bothered by not using the `nif` macro, which could even remove the need
-for the intermediate `test-value` variable:
-
-[source,scheme]
-----
-(define (search f neg-point pos-point)
-  (let ((midpoint (average neg-point pos-point)))
-    (if (close-enough? neg-point post-point)
-        midpoint
-        (nif (f midpoint)
-             (search f neg-point midpoint)
-             (midpoint)
-             (search f midpoint pos-point)))))
-----
-
-It also avoids `cond`'s extra clunky parentheses for grouping, which is
-unnecessary but built-in.
-
-As a macro, I personally feel it tilts the balance towards expressivenes despite
-its extra cognitive load toll.