Fantastic. Thanks Alex!
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 4:33 AM Alexander Burger
wrote:
> Hi Kevin, hi all,
>
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 09:40:51PM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
> > The conversion function can easily detect the type (short or big) when
> > converting to float, and overflow to bignum if
Hi Erik,
thats really cool! Thanks a lot for sharing!
☺/ A!ex
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 09:34:24PM -0600, Erik Gustafson wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> The rabbit hole went pretty deep. Here's my current viprc:
>
> https://gist.github.com/erdg/ebf4556382bc1bbbaf534c4ebd927322
>
> It now contains a
Hi Erik,
> >1. If the result of the evaluation is a list, we get the same result as
> > now.
> >2. But if the result is an atom, it is automatically 'cons'ed into a
> > cell.
> ...
> Works for me! I also often want to use a returned list without splicing,
> ...
> : (macro (2 4 (^(mapcar
> And why not following lisp tradition and use comma character (,) rather
> than caret
>
character (^) for evaluating expressions?
>
> In fact fill is more or less analogous to backquote (`) (also known as
> quasiquote) in
>
several lisps :
>
> `(1 2 3) -> (1 2 3)
> `(1 (+ 2 4) 3) -> (1 (+ 2 4)
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:27 PM Alexander Burger
wrote:
>
> So I went ahead and implemented the extended 'fill' behavior.
>
>: (fill (1 ^(+ 1 1) 3))
>-> (1 2 3)
>
> To make it more consistent, I also changed the '~' read macro in the same
> way.
> Now this works:
>
>: (~(- 4 3) (2
Hi Andras,
> What should (fill (1 ^ 7 9)) return ?
-> (1 7 9)
☺/ A!ex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
Hi Andras,
> I’ve opted instead to return the usual (1 9) and only lists evaluating to
> atoms
> trigger the new behaviour in (fill).
Yes, a difficult decision. Still, I believe the new semantics are more useful.
The expression following '^' can decide whether to return a list (possibly
empty)
Hi Alex,
What should (fill (1 ^ 7 9)) return ?
Regards,
Andras Pahi
> On 2021. Dec 13., at 18:21, Alexander Burger wrote:
>
> So I went ahead and implemented the extended 'fill' behavior.
>
> : (fill (1 ^(+ 1 1) 3))
> -> (1 2 3)
>
> To make it more consistent, I also changed the '~'
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 09:28:07PM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Yes, a difficult decision.
And, as Razzy said, we should really, really be careful. To be not carried away
by over-fantastic ideas. Recently, there were too many. Perhaps.
--
UNSUBSCRIBE:
