Hi Danilo, > If `lambda' (Lisp-defined Procedures) is `lst' why `num' is not?!
I'm not completely sure how you mean that, but you can also "define" a number: : + -> 270167 : (def 'plus (- (* 2 135085) 3)) -> plus : plus -> 270167 : (plus 3 4) -> 7 > Even if both `num' and `cnt' are defined in `structures', why `num' > can not be operated on as a `lst' that it is?! The digits in a bignum are not numbers, because they have no tag bits. They are just bit patterns, spanning the full 64 bits (or 32 on pil32). Thus, a bignum is *not* a list of numbers. > I think it would be (uber cute) to implement `num' as `lst' of `cnt' > as pure PL lib :) . Even in 32-bit version. Could be, but you waste 4 bits in each word for the tags. And numeric operations would have to discard them, getting slower. > I think `(doc 'eval)' should be the main part of the Reference :) . What about "doc/ref.html#ev"? > As we all know, to implement (define) Lisp /just/ `eval' is enough. > Who needs 7 primitives ;) ? `(doc 'lst)' (and `fun'...) is missing :) Not sure again what you mean. Which 7 primitives? ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=Unsubscribe