Alex Gilding <alex.gild...@talktalk.net> writes:
> Is there any kind of established definition of what specifically
> constitutes the PicoLisp language? i.e. what must, and what should, a
> third party Lisp implementation provide in order to be able to call
> itself a PicoLisp? (This is only hypothetical, I don't intend to try
> to reimplement PicoLisp, although that might be fun.) The PicoLisp
> Reference page is very interesting, and I can take a good guess at the
> answers to my questions after it, but it's not quite clear-cut about
> PicoLisp the concept vs. the implementation (and describes some
> features definitely absent from miniPicoLisp, so...).
ha, I have implemented a picolisp in java before Alex did his (proper)
version. I can confirm it was fun an worth the time;-)
The only definition for picolisp is whatever Alex thinks it's picolisp.
There is no committee or standards body to give a stamp. If you can
meet him, talk to him, I'm sure you'll learn something enlightening.
For Alex, the data representation described in one of the text files in
the repository is the core idea of picolisp. The rest is mostly
examples. For me it's more the amazingly thought out set of lisp
functions described in the reference manual. You choose. Whatever
makes you happy;-)