Hi Tomas,
Why error? Understanding of the three simple rules above is enough and
...
There are. You gave (1 2 3 . 4 . 5) as an example.
...
no, the sexp '4' gets lost as a consequence of the rules not because I
violated the rules (simply because the last cell before reading 4 is the
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 08:59:43PM +0200, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
The (traditional) multiprocessing by forking, shared memory etc. is
error-prone and not scalable!
Do you have anything to support this assertion? I would rather disagree
on this. It is more reliable than using threads and
Hi Tomas,
All functions ignore atomic CDRs of the last argument cell. You could
also try (onOff A B . X), the 'X' will be simply ignored.
so why is not NIL in the (onOff . NIL) ignored? ;-)
Well, the NIL _is_ ignored, in the same sense as the 'X' is ignored. The
NIL you observe results
Hi Nik,
I had the intention to learn more about how the concurrency model
in PicoLisp compares to languages like Erlang, Termite (Gambit),
Clojure, Scala etc.
OK, I see ;-)
This is not well documented yet. The basic model (for the processes on a
single machine and operating on the same
Hi Alex,
I forgot to state my original reason for raising this question:
The _whole_ dilemma arised, if you remember, arose from the fact that
we _want_ to use the dot in symbol names and numeric atoms, without
needing to escape it. Without that, the dot would be a pure
meta-character and
