Re: Implementation differences

2012-01-26 Thread Alex Gilding
OK. Combining that idea with the evaluation rules described in the Reference sounds like it ought to be enough for the moment. (I guess there's always the "So is this still PicoLisp?" test later on, if it ever comes to that!) Thanks, Alex G On 26/01/2012 08:54, Alexander Burger wrote: Hi T

Re: Implementation differences

2012-01-26 Thread Alex Gilding
Hi, 1) Is there a definitive list somewhere of which features are present in the different versions of PicoLisp? Well, you can generate it easily ;-) : (diff (all) (in '("mini/pil" "-println (all)" -bye) (read))) Haha, that answers that easily enough! Thanks for pointing it out. I'd better re

Re: Implementation differences

2012-01-26 Thread Alexander Burger
Hi Alex, > 1) Is there a definitive list somewhere of which features are > present in the different versions of PicoLisp? Well, you can generate it easily ;-) : (diff (all) (in '("mini/pil" "-println (all)" -bye) (read))) > (Speaking of which, are we permitted to redistribute the > documentati

Re: Implementation differences

2012-01-26 Thread Alexander Burger
Hi Tomas, > Alex Gilding writes: > > Is there any kind of established definition of what specifically > > constitutes the PicoLisp language? i.e. what must, and what should, a > > third party Lisp implementation provide in order to be able to call > > itself a PicoLisp? > ... > The only definitio

Re: Implementation differences

2012-01-25 Thread Yiorgos Adamopoulos
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Tomas Hlavaty wrote: > The only definition for picolisp is whatever Alex thinks it's picolisp. There is also this thread (12 messages) http://www.mail-archive.com/picolisp@software-lab.de/msg02148.html which I admit to have not studied yet (Down in my list of s

Re: Implementation differences

2012-01-25 Thread Tomas Hlavaty
Hi Alex, Alex Gilding writes: > Is there any kind of established definition of what specifically > constitutes the PicoLisp language? i.e. what must, and what should, a > third party Lisp implementation provide in order to be able to call > itself a PicoLisp? (This is only hypothetical, I don't

Implementation differences

2012-01-25 Thread Alex Gilding
Hi all, (Noobie questions incoming.) I have a couple of related questions about implementations: 1) Is there a definitive list somewhere of which features are present in the different versions of PicoLisp? The comment on the download page is a little bit vague about what has been left out of