--- On Thu, 1/26/12, Alexander Burger wrote:
> > (setq "V" 456)
> > at the top level (not in a definition) that works as
> expected
>
> Again strange. It shouldn't matter how the symbol is used
> (globally or bound locally).
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the guidance!
On second look, I was wrong about
OK. Combining that idea with the evaluation rules described in the
Reference sounds like it ought to be enough for the moment. (I guess
there's always the "So is this still PicoLisp?" test later on, if it
ever comes to that!)
Thanks,
Alex G
On 26/01/2012 08:54, Alexander Burger wrote:
Hi T
Hi,
1) Is there a definitive list somewhere of which features are
present in the different versions of PicoLisp?
Well, you can generate it easily ;-)
: (diff (all) (in '("mini/pil" "-println (all)" -bye) (read)))
Haha, that answers that easily enough! Thanks for pointing it out. I'd
better re
Hi Jakob,
> (Right now there are three "standards", the miniPicoLisp,
> the 32-bit PicoLisp, and the x86_64 PicoLisp.)
Please let me point out that the 64-bit version is in no way restricted
to the x86_64 architecture. It just happens to be the first (and
probably most useful) implementati
Hi Doug,
> (de foo (x) x)
> ...
> (de baz ("X") "X")
Hmm, this looks very much as if the call
isIntern(tail(y), Transient)
doesn't work for some reason. It seems that the two "X" symbols are not
the same.
Strange that it works for 'Internal' symbols.
> (setq "V" 456)
> at the top level (n
Hi Alex,
> 1) Is there a definitive list somewhere of which features are
> present in the different versions of PicoLisp?
Well, you can generate it easily ;-)
: (diff (all) (in '("mini/pil" "-println (all)" -bye) (read)))
> (Speaking of which, are we permitted to redistribute the
> documentati
Hi Tomas,
> Alex Gilding writes:
> > Is there any kind of established definition of what specifically
> > constitutes the PicoLisp language? i.e. what must, and what should, a
> > third party Lisp implementation provide in order to be able to call
> > itself a PicoLisp?
> ...
> The only definitio
On January 26, 2012 at 1:34 AM Alex Gilding wrote:
>
> 2) Related to that, the download page describes miniPicoLisp as "pure"
> PicoLisp, supporting "the full language". Is there any kind of
> established definition of what specifically constitutes the PicoLisp
Good initiative!
I suggest w
