Hi Alex,

>    (let @S '((I . 0))
>       (def 'count (curry (@S) () (job '@S (inc 'I))))
>       (def 'reset (curry (@S) () (job '@S (zero I)))) )
>
>    (let @S (list (cons 'I 0))
>    (let I (cons 0)

I like it this way, thanks.

I also found that once the things inside the closures get complicated,
it might be worth using objects to get better code factoring:

(class +Counter) # i
(dm T () (=: i 0))
(dm count> () (inc (:: i)))
(dm reset> () (=: i 0))

(let @C (list (cons 'C (new '(+Counter))))
   (def 'count (curry (@C) () (job '@C (count> C))))
   (def 'reset (curry (@C) () (job '@C (reset> C)))) )

Or using objects directly so that I can have many independent
counters...  It did the job for my understanding of closures in
picoLisp, I hope:-)

> Sometimes non-evaluating functions are a little more convenient, and
> at least theoretically more efficient.
>
> (zero A) occupies two cells.
>
> (zero 'A) would be three, and that's the same as (setq A 0), so it
> would not save any space.

Have you measured and/or noticed impact on performance of these
micro-optimizations?  I mean, are they really worth it?

Thanks,

Tomas
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to