I agree with Alex, Tomas you should focus your energy on other less
archaic things :)
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrot=
> Hi Tomas,
> thanks for the input!
> I think you take this matter too seriously. The core of the problem is
> simply a 50-years-old fault in the Lisp syntax: The "dot" notation is
> written with a dot, but it is desirable to use the dot also in atoms
> (most notably in numbers). A better design would have been to use some
> other meta character, e.g. the vertical slash as in other languages. A
> "dotted" pair would then look like (a | b)
> Besides this, I think the situation in PicoLisp is clear and well-
> defined: The dot is allowed as _part_ of a symbol name, but _not_ as a
> symbol name per se. A stand-alone dot is a meta character.
> This is also mentioned in "doc/ref.html" in the "Internal Symbols"
> =A0 The dot '.' has a dual nature. It is a meta character when standing
> =A0 alone, denoting a dotted pair, but can otherwise be used in symbol
> =A0 names.
> Thus, in a dotted pair, it must be surrounded by delimiters (this is a
> fix I introduced recently because of your (correct) criticism).
> In all other situations (allowing the dot as a stand-alone symbol) you
> will always create confusion.
>> ... <examples proving my statement omitted>
>> : '(. . 1 . 2)
>> (\. . 1) -- Bad dotted pair
>> ? -> 2
>> : (quote . (1 2 3 . 4 . 5))
>> -> (1 2 3 . 5)
>> : (quote . (1 2 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 .))
>> -> (1 2 3 .)
>> Does such a behaviour make more sense to others to?
> I think this makes things worse. Should a dot in these examples be a
> single-dot-symbol, or does it mark a dotted pair? I would always prefer
> to get an error here.
> Other opinions?
> - Alex
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=3dunsubscribe