Re: A question about the definition of tail in miniPicoLisp

One technique in C for mapping incompatible pointer or alignment sizes (for when you can't, or don't want to, convert directly between pointer and `intptr_t`) is to use an intermediate array, and instead of storing native pointers, store indexes into this array. For your case you could put all

Re: native/lisp in picolisp32

With a system like miniPicoLisp, like any ultra-light footprint interpreter - does a general purpose FFI really gel with the design? IMO the way people normally use interpreters in this weight class (see also, Lua, Chibi, picoC, Jim, ...) is to embed them: i.e. the interpreter becomes a

Re: Best way to learn picolisp

I get the impression comparing CL to Picolisp is a bit like comparing C++ to Javascript* - they look similar only if you stand far enough away from the screen... (* there isn't really a C-family language that fits the example, but anyway) On 8 June 2016 at 14:46, Joe Golden

Re: Calm my fears please. . . .

On 8 March 2015 at 13:52, Lawrence Bottorff borg...@gmail.com wrote: Does the Lisp world, specifically picoLisp, have a response to these insistent Besserwisser people? I sincerely hope not. Please don't turn this into a tribal thing. This is the sort of reasoning that led to the CL

Re: A pragmatic solution to using arrays in picolisp

2) I suppose that the garbage collector would have to keep track of all those CELL pointers in the array, that are outside of the reach of the picolisp symbol table. That would be the price to pay, I think a smaller price than adding another datatype. One cheap workaround for this would

Unsubscribe

subscribe

Re: PicoLisp on NuttX

Sadly not PicoLisp, but another alternative you could look at if you need a really, *really* tiny Lisp is PICOBIT: https://github.com/stamourv/picobit It's a Scheme. Claims (perhaps pinch of salt needed) to be able to run in as little as 1KB RAM. The original developer was the guy behind

Re: Performance of Recursion vs Iteration in PicoLisp

(If you can forgive a PicoLisp n00b shoving his face into the discussion...) You actually have that the opposite way around. Tail call elimination (tail recursion is just one special case of tail calls) is a *semantic* rule that says that a function's activation no longer has any influence on

Re: Performance of Recursion vs Iteration in PicoLisp

On 10/05/2013 16:19, Alexander Burger wrote: you cannot do TCE while interpreting List structures. You have to do it in the compiler, as it requires some analysis of the code structure. One could always look ahead and try to analyse the s-expression's structure while executing it... this

Re: Implementation differences

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

Implementation differences

knows how to use. (Speaking of which, are we permitted to redistribute the documentation?) Thanks, Alex Gilding -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe