On Sat 13 Mar 2021 at 13:33, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote: > It does. Just the syntax is different: > > (de <p> (@Str) (fill '(p @Str))) > > This also creates just 2 cells.
True, I forgot about fill. > But the FEXPR solution explained at PilCon allocates no new cells at all. It > prints directly. Avoiding allocations is wrong thing to do for this use-case. Printing directly is severely inconvenient. Do you have a neat solution to the svg viewBox problem I wrote about? > Also, needing two separate functions for every HTML function is ugly, tedious > and error-prone. Not sure what do you mean. There would be only one function, lets call it html which takes a cons tree and prints it using html syntax. Opposite of tedious and error-prone. Similar to the xml function in picolisp. > Side-effects like printing? No problem! In PicoLisp, you can trace, > break and single-step FEXPRs (with or without side-effects) like any > other function (unlike macros in e.g. Common Lisp). You can trace it but the trace does not show the side-effect thus making trace useless. >> Using FEXPRs for html output is misoptimisation. > > Wrong. In reality it is misoptimisation because it optimizes for irrelevant advantage of no allocation but it severely criples what one can do. -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
