> 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?
> The only definition for picolisp is whatever Alex thinks it's picolisp.
Nono. I'm not the owner of PicoLisp, just the discoverer.
What I probably meant with the "pure" language is everything which deals
with plain Lisp data like symbols and lists -- as opposed to the
"system" dependent parts like I/O, networking, process control etc.
In this aspect, mini, ersatz, the C and the assembler versions of
PicoLisp should all be compatible. A major difference, though, is that
mini supports only small numbers.
> 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
Right. It is the "structures" file in the "doc/" directories.