Re: onOff question

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Alexander Burger wrote: Hi TC, thanks for your proposal. However, as I explained in another mail, I would definitely not change the current behavior of 'list' or 'cons' (and most other functions in picoLisp). I'm uncertain if '() is actually (NIL . NIL) so I'm not going

Re: onOff question

Hi TC, thanks for your proposal. However, as I explained in another mail, I would definitely not change the current behavior of 'list' or 'cons' (and most other functions in picoLisp). > I'm uncertain if '() is actually (NIL . NIL) so I'm not going to list > the cons' examples. No, these are d

Re: onOff question

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 resul

Re: onOff question

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Tomas Hlavaty wrote: Hi Alex, 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? ;-) zero arguments (as in 'onOff') are not to be expected, the fu

Re: onOff question

Hi Alex, > 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? ;-) > zero arguments (as in 'onOff') are not to be expected, the function goes > straight on and "takes" th

Re: onOff question

Hi Tomas, > > Yes. But on the other hand, missing arguments usually default to NIL in > > picoLisp. Makes not much sense in the case of 'onOff'. > > I know, but it still doesn't make sense even in v2.3.7. That's not what I mean, it has nothing to do with the version. > : (onOff) > > is the sa

Re: onOff question

Hi Alex, >> is this supposed to happen? >> .. >> : (onOff) >> -> T >> : (show NIL) >> T T > > Oops, no. But if I try here: > > : (onOff) > !? (onOff) > NIL -- Protected symbol > ? > > I really don't remember, but it could well be that I "repaired" that > in the course of rewriting some pa

Re: onOff question

Hi Tomas, sorry, I missed the last two questions: > (onOff sym ..) -> flg > >Logical negates the VAL's of all argument symbols sym. Returns the >new value of the last symbol. > > - Should not the symbol names be passed explicitly? Yes. But on the other hand, missing arguments usually d

Re: onOff question

Hi Tomas, > is this supposed to happen? > .. > : (onOff) > -> T > : (show NIL) > T T Oops, no. But if I try here: : (onOff) !? (onOff) NIL -- Protected symbol ? I really don't remember, but it could well be that I "repaired" that in the course of rewriting some parts while codig the 64

onOff question

Hi Alex, is this supposed to happen? : (show NIL) NIL NIL -> NIL : (onOff) -> T : (show NIL) T T -> T : (=T NIL) -> T : (onOff sym ..) -> flg Logical negates the VAL's of all argument symbols sym. Returns the new value of the last symbol. - Should not the symbol names be passed explicit