On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 12:06:27 +0800
Samuel Dennis Borlongan wrote:
> Thanks for the critique!
>
> Pre-emptive apologies for the structure (or lack of it) of the reply
> below:
>
> Apologies for making you refactor my sucky code.
It was I who decided to refactor it so no worries.
> I wrote th
Hello there!
Today, as a (likely useless) pet project, I've modified the C source code of
pil32 so that it can be compiled with clang.
TD;LR: because clang refuses to implement a gcc extension[1], this patch
plagues some (small) parts of the source code with macro calls, but compiled
code work
Hi Guillermo, Samuel,
I agree with all you both discussed, except for the 'funcall' issue.
> By the way, the current build of srborlongan-picolisp now includes
> java/funcall.l, 'cause you're awesome and your code is beautiful.
It is an important feature of PicoLisp that a construct like 'funca
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:18:43 +0100
Alexander Burger wrote:
> It is an important feature of PicoLisp that a construct like 'funcall'
> is NOT needed.
>
> One of the fundamental principles of the PicoLisp evaluation
> mechanisms is that the CAR of a list is evaluated, and then used as a
> function
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:45:32PM -0300, Guillermo R. Palavecino wrote:
> > It is an important feature of PicoLisp that a construct like 'funcall'
> > is NOT needed.
> ...
> Funcall is not meant for one-liners, it's meant to avoid the horrible
> indentation that ((..) ..) gives in multi-line exp
