Unsubscribe

2017-10-16 Thread Mark Anderson

Unsubscribe

2017-10-16 Thread Peyton Farrar
Good bye Peyton Farrar :-( You are now unsubscribed -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Re: Needing a trick with 'de

2017-10-16 Thread andreas
> My question: which mechanism frees X of the value it was setq-ed? During function execution, the variables (symbols actually) used as parameters (in the function definition) are like in an implicit (let): When executing, the values are bound to the arguments as specified in the function call,

Re: Needing a trick with 'de

2017-10-16 Thread Alexander Burger
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 03:44:54PM +0200, Christophe Gragnic wrote: > Because I thought that setq would store a value in the parameter var > "more permanently". > Something like: > > : (foo (need 3)) >(need 3) >-> 3 > : X > -> (need 3) # what I expected > > I thought using a let

Re: Needing a trick with 'de

2017-10-16 Thread Christophe Gragnic
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Alexander Burger wrote: > This is just unnecessary overhead, as 'let' is basically 'bind' (or 'use' to > be > more correct) plus 'setq'. And 'X' is bound already by the function call. So > why > waste time and (stack)space? Because I

Re: Needing a trick with 'de

2017-10-16 Thread Alexander Burger
Hi Christophe, > I'm quite surprised of the use of setq instead of let. > Could you please elaborate? Do you mean, staying with the generated example code: (de foo X (setq X (car X)) (msg X) (length (eval X)) ) to generate instead: (de foo X (let X (car X)