cool, thanks On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Joh-Tob Schäg <[email protected]> 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" <[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
