Ok, thanks for the answers. 

So, if miniPicolisp should be a "real" project, would sub? (and any other 
"missing" functions) be available in it sooner or later? pre? is available, so 
is there any reason why sub? and hash are not found? I might try it myself, but 
it would take the time of my understanding of the source code ;-)

As far as I know there are many string algorithms written for ascii or 8bits 
chars which work directly with utf-8, because of the utf-8 encoding and for 
example, searching for an utf-8 char can simply be done with some ascii 
substring search functions. pre? seems to works perfectly with utf-8 in 
miniPicolisp.

Has the RAM/ROM trick an impact on performance when miniPicolisp is used on a 
regular computer (for command line application or embedded in a larger 
application?) 

Thanks,

Densi



From: picolisp@software-lab.de <picolisp@software-lab.de> on behalf of 
Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de>
Sent: August 20, 2017 2:45 PM
To: picolisp@software-lab.de
Subject: Re: Missing functions in miniPicolisp?
    
Hi Denis,

> I have finally tried yesterday miniPicolisp (which might actually be all I
> need). It seems, that some functions like sub? or hash have not been 
> implemented
> yet while (all) says their symbols are present (On the other hand, later is 
> also
> included in this list which does not match the specs (actually its value is
> NIL).

This happens because these symbols are referred to somewhere. As you may know,
Lisp symbols simply spring into existence when needed.

For example, 'later' appears in the 'pretty' function in "src/lib.s"

   ((memq (car X) '(=: use later recur tab new))

as a copy of the original 'pretty' in full PicoLisp. So this could in fact be
cleared up.


> I do not know whether miniPicolisp has just been an experiment or aims to be a
> serious project, but in the later case, such functions (sub?, hash,...) will 
> be

It may indeed be useful in embedded systems. I think some people use it.


> useful, because even if there is no utf-8 support, as far as I know (please
> correct me, if I am wrong), many utf-8 string processing can be done at byte
> level.

Yes, should be possible using the numeric representation of the characters. But
rather tedious I suspect.

♪♫ Alex

-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
    

Reply via email to