OK. Combining that idea with the evaluation rules described in the
Reference sounds like it ought to be enough for the moment. (I guess
there's always the "So is this still PicoLisp?" test later on, if it
ever comes to that!)
On 26/01/2012 08:54, Alexander Burger wrote:
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.