If they become unreachable, they will be collected. That is a more compact way ofnsaying what i just said. If you want to get more technicalnread mine but this one is easier to understand Am 17.12.2016 03:53 schrieb "John Duncan" <[email protected]>:
> If they become unreachable, they will be collected. > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Bruno Franco < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe >>> >> >> > > > -- > John Duncan >
