# Re: Loosing elements in a sorted list

```cool, thanks

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Joh-Tob Schäg <johtob...@gmail.com> wrote:```
```
> 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" <duncan.j...@gmail.com>:
>
>> If they become unreachable, they will be collected.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Bruno Franco <
>> brunofrancosala...@gmail.com> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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```