Jun 7, 2019, 7:31 PM by a...@software-lab.de: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 03:39:12PM +0200, JmageK wrote: > >> Why is the dot neccesary for the subexpression to be bound, is it a general >> rule that's documented somewhere? >> > > I would say it is a general rule, following from the (CAR . CDR) principle of > Lisp data. > This cons thing gets me, always! > In our case, the CAR is 'cond' and the CDR is @X > > Without the dot (cond @X) is filled to > > (cond (((match ...)))) > Okay so this step is where it becomes mandatory to use a dot. > while *with* the dot it becomes > > (cond . (((match ...)))) > > which is the same as > > (cond ((match ...))) > > which in turn is what we need here. > > Otherwise it won't work(previous version) Now it makes sense. Apparently, it's the little stuff that bugs the most. Thanks for the explanation!
-- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
