|
 |
In article <web.4a8b9c8c606eeda4cb3dd3d0@news.povray.org>,
nemesis wrote:
> Daniel Bastos <dbastos+0### [at] toledo com> wrote:
>> #!/usr/bin/env mzscheme
>> (module cat scheme/base
>>
>> (define (interact f)
>> (let ([ln (read-line)])
>> (cond
>> [(not (eq? ln eof))
>> (and
>> (printf "~a\n" (f ln))
>> (interact f))])))
>>
>> (define (id x) x)
>>
>> (define (cat files)
>> (for-each
>> (lambda (x)
>> (with-input-from-file x
>> (lambda ()
>> (interact id))))
>> files))
>>
>> ;main
>> (cat (vector->list (current-command-line-arguments)))
>> )
>>
>> With with-input-from-file, we get the stdin connected to the file
>> opened, so no changes in interact were required.
>
> That's the PLT way. here's another:
By the way, I'm studying Scheme through PLT due to a clue from
authority, which I gathered. I absolutely know nothing about
implementations, but I saw this guy who seems to do his homework using
PLT, so instead of MIT, I picked PLT. Clearly at this point it doesn't
matter, but I already think about portability. Can you give me a word
on portability? On UNIX, I use POSIX as a reference, even though I
don't consider it a standard in a profound way; it works as a document
to help me understand what is like to be common out there. I'd like
that in Scheme.
>
> #!r6rs
> (import (rnrs base)(rnrs io simple)(rnrs programs))
>
> ; simple and straightforward standard R6RS scheme solution
> (define (cat files)
> (for-each
> (lambda (file)
> (call-with-input-file file
> (lambda (port)
> ; no simple line-oriented IO in standard R6RS
> ; so you either write one or loop char-by-char
> (let go ((c (read-char port)))
> (if (not (eof-object? c))
> (begin
> (write-char c)
> (go (read-char port))))))))
> files))
>
> (cat (cdr (command-line)))
I've kinda been able to read this; which is cool. But I don't really
get the purpose of ``go'' here.
>> Lisp likes might be hackestables.
>
> I just love Lisp, Scheme in particular. Minimalist like C, only much higher
> level. Incidentally, the only two languages I truly enjoy, for different
> purposes sure.
Same here.
> yes, I'm aware the C solution for this particular example would be way
> shorter... :P
I see it as the same thing; there isn't anything very high level about
cat that could really be taken advantage of a very high level language.
Here's the essence of cat from AT&T UNIX version 7.
while (--argc > 0) {
if (fflg || (*++argv)[0]=='-' && (*argv)[1]=='\0')
fi = stdin;
else {
if ((fi = fopen(*argv, "r")) == NULL) {
fprintf(stderr, "cat: can't open %s\n", *argv);
continue;
}
}
fstat(fileno(fi), &statb);
if (statb.st_dev==dev && statb.st_ino==ino) {
fprintf(stderr, "cat: input %s is output\n",
fflg?"-": *argv);
fclose(fi);
continue;
}
while ((c = getc(fi)) != EOF)
putchar(c);
if (fi!=stdin)
fclose(fi);
}
Hey, looking at this very old cat, I can see that Warp is going to say
that our cats aren't cats after all; we don't read the stdin. And
he'll be right.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |