, the miniPicoLisp,
the 32-bit PicoLisp, and the x86_64 PicoLisp.)
- Core language specification
* list and data manipulating
* very basic I/O, like stdin and stdout
- Full PicoLisp Runtime Specification:
- all of the above
- PicoLisp database
- networking
- whatever is in the current
Hi Jakob,
(Right now there are three standards, the miniPicoLisp,
the 32-bit PicoLisp, and the x86_64 PicoLisp.)
Please let me point out that the 64-bit version is in no way restricted
to the x86_64 architecture. It just happens to be the first (and
probably most useful) implementation.
, but something needs to
be done quick. ;-)
I'll better not do that, as I wrote about my view of the core language
in other places (e.g. the references).
Cheers,
- Alex
/Jon
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Jon,
That's a possibility. I can't say exactly when, but something needs
to be done quick. ;-)
OK, I fixed the offending part ;-)
I'm also not sure about the statement that 'if' is the most often used
conditional. I feel that I'm using 'and'/'or' and 'when'/'unless' much
more frequently
Hi Alex,
On 10/12/10 9:51 AM, Alexander Burger wrote:
Hi Jon,
That's a possibility. I can't say exactly when, but something needs
to be done quick. ;-)
OK, I fixed the offending part ;-)
Now it says The values are not bound to the variables one by one. It
should probably have been The
Hi Jon,
Now it says The values are not bound to the variables one by one.
It should probably have been The values are bound to the variables
one by one ...?
Of course. Sorry! Confusion is growing ;-)
Thanks,
- Alex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
In the not yet completed Wiki article The core language of PicoLisp
http://picolisp.com/5000/-2-1L.html, there's a paragraph Declaring
variables where I read (re. 'let') that
The values are not bound to the variables until execution of the prg
has begun, so this excludes using v1 to set
to be no longer interested :(
article is OK, since my name will show at the bottom for a good
while. ;-) Maybe it's better to remove this article temporarily ...?
I would be glad if you'd take over ;-)
I'll better not do that, as I wrote about my view of the core language
in other places (e.g
