Re: a bunch of questions about syntax

thanks for your answers, Alex On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Alexander Burger wrote: > > > >(if (testSomething) (doSomething1) (doSomething2) (doSomething3)) > > ... > > but this also means the only way to indicate several executable > expressions > > in the

Re: a bunch of questions about syntax

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 09:55:14PM +0100, pd wrote: > Thank you Alex for your patience, I see I have a severe confussion about > how picolisp manages lists No problem! It is good to discuss this here, as it may help others too. > let's start by the begining... as far as I know (f a b 4) is

Re: a bunch of questions about syntax

Thank you Alex for your patience, I see I have a severe confussion about how picolisp manages lists let's start by the begining... as far as I know (f a b 4) is just a list equivalent to (f . (a . (b . (4 . NIL and the fact being also a function call to function f applying parameters a b

Re: a bunch of questions about syntax

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 02:35:09AM +0100, pd wrote: > sorry, I accidentally sent an incomplete message, here's the complete one > ... > >> > >> BTW, I thought again about the terminology of "list" versus "cons pairs" > >> and > >> plain "cells". "list" is a rather unprecise term, I feel it is not

Re: a bunch of questions about syntax

sorry, I accidentally sent an incomplete message, here's the complete one On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 1:51 AM, pd wrote: > Thanks again for your explanations Alex, still some comments... > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Alexander Burger > wrote: > >>

Re: a bunch of questions about syntax

Thanks again for your explanations Alex, still some comments... On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Alexander Burger wrote: > > > BTW, I thought again about the terminology of "list" versus "cons pairs" > and > plain "cells". "list" is a rather unprecise term, I feel it is

Re: a bunch of questions about syntax

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:35:20PM +0100, pd wrote: > Alex, thanks a lot for your very clarifier reply (specially the procedural > way of thinking which makes a lot of sense to me), I'm still confusing in a > couple of things... No problem! BTW, I thought again about the terminology of "list"

Re: a bunch of questions about syntax

Alex, thanks a lot for your very clarifier reply (specially the procedural way of thinking which makes a lot of sense to me), I'm still confusing in a couple of things... I've read in docs that the ' prefix in a name of formal parameter when describing a funcion indicates it's a evaluated

Re: a bunch of questions about syntax

Hi Pd, >- three base data types: Numbers, Symbols and Cons Pairs (Lists), >... > suggesting dotted pairs are the same as lists, both are > indistinguishable so it should be possible to write any list as a dotted > pair, i. e. (1 2) = (1 . (2 . NIL)) but what is the list for (1 . 2)

a bunch of questions about syntax

I was reading the picolip documents ref, tutorial and function reference and I'm afraid I misunderstand some concepts, so I'm asking a bunch of questions in the hope you can help to achieve a better picolisp understanding 1- In the ref document it's said talking about types in picolisp: -