Re: alist vs plist in PicoLisp

Alexander Burger a...@software-lab.de writes: Hi Alex, Correct. The value of a property is in the CAR of the corresponding cell, to allow it to be treated as a 'var' and thus be passed to place-modifying functions ('push', 'set', 'inc' etc.). This can be done with the 'prop' and '::'

Re: alist vs plist in PicoLisp

Hi Thorsten, You can genearate a list of value-key-pairs from a symbol's properties with 'getl', but this will always return a freshly cons'ed list, not ... But what is the returned list ((VAL . KEY) KEY (VAL . KEY)) then? A property-list (not really, because its not part of the symbols

Re: alist vs plist in PicoLisp

Alexander Burger a...@software-lab.de writes: Hi Alex, You can genearate a list of value-key-pairs from a symbol's properties with 'getl', but this will always return a freshly cons'ed list, not ... But what is the returned list ((VAL . KEY) KEY (VAL . KEY)) then? A property-list (not

Re: alist vs plist in PicoLisp

Hi Thorsten, ((KEY VAL VAL) (KEY VAL VAL) KEY VAL) ((VAL . KEY) KEY VAL KEY)) #+end_src picolisp it does not matter that the cells in the second one are not dotted pairs. Right. In a certain way, the *are* also dotted pairs, though. You can of course always write ((KEY VAL VAL)

Re: alist vs plist in PicoLisp

Alexander Burger a...@software-lab.de writes: Hi Alex, And property list extracted with 'lget' from a symbol would be 'true' You mean 'getl' ups ... This is because the 'get' family of symbol property access functions use '==' (pointer equality) for searching. Example: : (setq

Namespace definitons in project with several files

Hi List, in a project with several .l files, when all definitions from all files should be in the same 'project namespace - what would be the right way to define the namespace: 1. Several '(symbols 'project 'pico) definitions, one at the top of each .l file? 2. Only one '(symbols

Are :keyword symbols a legal deviation from the rules?

Hi List, I deal in PicoLisp with keyword symbols imported from Emacs Lisp that look like ,- | :keyword `- They probably should be uppercase due to PicoLisp naming conventions. However, isn't the ':' at the beginning enough to avoid conflicts with other global symbols? If that would be

Re: Are :keyword symbols a legal deviation from the rules?

Hi Thorsten, I deal in PicoLisp with keyword symbols imported from Emacs Lisp that look like ,- | :keyword `- They probably should be uppercase due to PicoLisp naming conventions. However, isn't the ':' at the beginning enough to avoid conflicts with other global symbols? If

Re: Are :keyword symbols a legal deviation from the rules?

Alexander Burger a...@software-lab.de writes: Hi Alex, The ':' shouldn't conflict. You can find that out (after 'load'ing all relevant files in debug mode) with : (what :@) - (: ::) ok, I see, thanks for both answers (other post too). -- cheers, Thorsten -- UNSUBSCRIBE:

Re: Are :keyword symbols a legal deviation from the rules?

Hi Thorsten, The ':' shouldn't conflict. You can find that out (after 'load'ing all relevant files in debug mode) with : (what :@) - (: ::) BTW, will there be any conflict at all? An internal symbol pre se will never conflict. It is its binding (value or function definition) or

Re: Are :keyword symbols a legal deviation from the rules?

Hi Thorsten, An internal symbol pre se will never conflict. It is its binding (value or function definition) or properties that may conflict. As I understand it, those :keywords have no special value bindings (?) Hmm ... they come along as a 'free' property list in Emacs Lisp (not