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.

thank you.

> Cheers,
> Tomas
> --
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Reply via email to