Hi Tomas,
> When you work on the 64 bit version, you obviously implemented
> miniPicoLisp "prototype" and now building it in assembler. How and
The two implementations have almost nothing in common. Just that 'mini'
compiles also on 64 bits, because its model is independent of the
machine's word
Hi Alex,
>> Have you measured and/or noticed impact on performance of these
>> micro-optimizations? I mean, are they really worth it?
>
> Very probably not ... it is similar to the situation with 'do' ;-)
When you work on the 64 bit version, you obviously implemented
miniPicoLisp "prototype" and
> This would make sense. That functionality is covered by 'head', though.
Oops, I did not notice this... must read ref more carefully:-o
> because 'T' has the meaning of "infinite" in comparisons.
Nice interpretation.
I will assume my case is too application specific.
> I'm very glad about thi
> Do you really think you would need such a feature often?
It would be useful sometimes, when debuging for example, I would not
have to change the code much, just stick I and print...
>(let I 0 (do 5 (print (inc 'I)) "finished"))
With this I would have to add parens and inc etc.
Not somethi
Hi Tomas,
> : (pre '(1 2) '(1 2 3 4))
> -> T
> : (pre '(1 2) '(1 5 2 3 4))
> -> NIL
This would make sense. That functionality is covered by 'head', though.
> 'length' returns T for circular lists currently, which is not great.
> It could return the real length too (as the number of 'car' elemen
Hi Tomas,
> ... (zero A) ...
> ..
> Have you measured and/or noticed impact on performance of these
> micro-optimizations? I mean, are they really worth it?
Very probably not ... it is similar to the situation with 'do' ;-)
Still I think it is good to have certain convenience functions that
don
Hi Tomas,
> I see that you take big pain to optimize things a lot. I would
Not intentionally ;-)
I don't really mind so much about the actual performance, but more about
the underlying principles. And I feel that it is not the "right thing"
to waste a cell at each primitive iteration through a
Hi Alex,
diving more into picoLisp utility functions I foud some functions that
could be extended:
For example 'pre?' and 'sub?' could understand lists:
(de pre (P L)
(let X T
(while (and X P L)
(if (and (pair P) (pair L) (= (car P) (car L)))
(setq P (cdr P) L (cdr
Hi Alex,
>(let @S '((I . 0))
> (def 'count (curry (@S) () (job '@S (inc 'I
> (def 'reset (curry (@S) () (job '@S (zero I )
>
>(let @S (list (cons 'I 0))
>(let I (cons 0)
I like it this way, thanks.
I also found that once the things inside the closures get complica
Hi Alex,
> The current implementation of 'do' is not well suited to grant access to
> the internal counter to the application level.
>
> Because 32bit PicoLisp has no short numbers, incrementing a number
> always results in the allocation of a new cell (turning the old cell
> into garbage). To avo
10 matches
Mail list logo
