Assuming ( 1 . Pointertotheonecontaining(2)) and ( 2 . Pointertotheonecontaining(3)) are no longer referenced by a node referenced by the global name space. They will be reclaimed during next gabarage collection and added to the free cell list. Am 17.12.2016 03:33 schrieb "Bruno Franco" <brunofrancosala...@gmail.com>:
> Hi John, Alex, > > Thank you for your explanations, I think I now understand how sort works: > So, for example, in > > : (setq A (3 1 2 4 5 6)) > -> (3 1 2 4 5 6) > : (setq B (sort A)) > -> (1 2 3 4 5 6) > : A > -> (3 4 5 6) > : B > -> (1 2 3 4 5 6) > > The symbol A points to the first cell of the list (3 1 2 3 4 5 6), and > each cell > points to the next cell in the list. When sort is applied, the pointing > order of the cells > is changed so that each cell is in the right order in the list. But, A is > still pointing to > the same cell as before, and if that cell has moved, then A ends up > pointing to the > middle of the list. > > In the case above, A points to the cell with CAR 3, and when that cell is > moved, A ends > up pointing to the 3rd element of the list. And so, the list that is built > as the value of A > starts at the 3rd element. > > My follow up question is, what happens to those first 2 cells, if they're > not assigned to > anything? Do they just stay there? Or are they deleted, perhaps by the > garbage collector? > > P.S. > I also wanted to apologise. When I reread my first mail I realised it was > arrogant of me to > imply that a feature of the language might be a bug. > You have put a lot of effort into this language, and it shows Several > design decisions that > first surprised me turned out to be awesome, because they let me write > code that was > shorter, easier to read, and prettier. And because they lead to a more > consistent language. > > Thank you for all your effort Alex. I like a lot the language you've made. > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> > wrote: > >> Hi Bruno, >> >> > But that might be because with 'by, the operation is not destructive. >> >> This is correct. 'sort' is destructive, and 'by' is not, because it >> builds a >> fresh, private list. >> >> >> > Is this normal operation of picolisp? I assumed its not, because I >> didn't >> > catch any reference to it in the documentation. >> >> Every destructive function should be marked as such in the reference Let >> us >> know when you find a case where this is missing. >> >> - Alex >> -- >> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe >> > >
