Hi Jon,
> I can accept your explanation, but then I think the docs should make it
> clear that the sorted list is what's returned by the function, and that
> the state of the "input list" afterwards can be somewhat unpredictable.
I agree that the documentation is rather terse, but that's a featur
Hi Tomas,
I can accept your explanation, but then I think the docs should make it
clear that the sorted list is what's returned by the function, and that
the state of the "input list" afterwards can be somewhat unpredictable.
/Jon
> Hi Jon,
>
>> (let L (3 2 5 4) (sort L) L)
>>
>> should give the
Hi Edwin, there's information on how to do this in several places, to
begin with the history of the mailing list if you search for perhaps
"remote database", "external database" or "ext functionality".
In the reference you have:
http://www.software-lab.de/doc/refE.html#*Ext
http://www.software-lab
Hi Jon,
> (let L (3 2 5 4) (sort L) L)
>
> should give the same result as
>
> (let L (3 2 5 4) (sort L))
it should not;-)
> Why couldn't L simply be given the same value?
L is given the same value which you print in the first case. In the
second case, you printed out the return value of 'sort'
Hi Alex,
thank you for reading thru and replying. `(pp)` helps a lot.
which leads to more questions...
> scalability. Moreover, I would say the typical case is not to have
> multiple databases, but a single database distributed across multiple
> machines.
>
this is very interesting. how would
Hi,
The docs on the 'sort' function says "Sorts lst by destructively
exchanging its elements." From this I get the impression that
(let L (3 2 5 4) (sort L) L)
should give the same result as
(let L (3 2 5 4) (sort L))
but that's not so, as the first one reveals that L get the value
(3 4 5),
