On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Tomas Hlavaty <t...@logand.com> wrote:
> Hi Edwin,
>> thinking about it a bit, i can just do away with one and live with the
>> other? say, can i just live with (bind)?
> yes, but it is more convenient to write let in your programs instead of
> the bind with constructing the binding list manually. However, in
> certain situations, one needs an evaluating version, e.g. when you
> construct code programmatically. I hit this situation in the wl
reading the docs again after this, (let) evaluates while (bind) does
not. i hope i got that right.
(yes sir, still learning. i'm actually in the process of skinning
minipicolisp to retain the wl functions. what i'm trying to do is
understand the minipicolisp interpreter)
> interpreter (the one written in Java) where I wanted to implement as
> much as possible in pure picolisp (as opposed to Java). There I needed
> evaluating versions of some functions. I don't remember off the top of
> my head which cases were those functions but I usually named them with a
> leading dot character to make it obvious they were internal. When you
> have the evaluating version it becomes easy to implement the macro
> version on top of them.
i see. but i still have to experience them firsthand. looking at the
java.wl, you have (up.) and (if.).
i'll let this stew some. please don't hesitate to shed further
enlightenment on this tho.
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:email@example.com?subject=Unsubscribe