Re: Functional Arguments

Hi Bruno, > I didn't know about picolisp's tolerance for nested symbols. Is there a > reason you chose this? > Like, it lets you write some cool code, or it makes the language more > robust? Not at all. It is the very basic functionality of the interpreter. Without it, nothing would work. The

Re: Functional Arguments

Thanks Alex. I didn't know about picolisp's tolerance for nested symbols. Is there a reason you chose this? Like, it lets you write some cool code, or it makes the language more robust? On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Alexander Burger wrote: > Hi all, > > while talking

Functional Arguments

Hi all, while talking about 'set' and 'setq', let me clarify another issue. Quite often I see here - or in IRC - expressions like (mapc 'set '(A B C) (1 2 3)) or (mapcar 'inc (4 5 6)) While this certainly works, it is actually wrong, or at least unnecessary. The mapping functions want