On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 02:07:29PM +0100, Tomas Hlavaty wrote:
> > Should I keep that change?
>
> Yes please;-)
OK, it is now in the testing release (together with the check for "NIL"
in 'intern').
Cheers,
- Alex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Alex,
>> I would expect:
>>
>> : (make (link 1) (chain 2))
>> -> (1 . 2)
> In this respect, 'chain' is analogous, it simply processes the cell
> arguments, and does not preserve any CDRs, as it cannot not know if
> later more elements will be added with 'link' or 'chain'.
Yes, I think the beh
Hi Tomas,
> : (make (link 1) (chain (cons 2 3)))
> -> (1 2 . 3)
> ...
> I would expect:
>
> : (make (link 1) (chain 2))
> -> (1 . 2)
Right, this would take on the same philosophy as 'append' or 'conc':
: (append (1) 2)
-> (1 . 2)
But here, too, it only works for the last element, and in
Hi Alex,
(chain 'lst ..) -> lst
is there a reason 'chain' does not work with atoms?
: (make (link 1))
-> (1)
: (make (link 1) (chain 2))
-> (1)
: (make (link 1) (chain (cons 2 3)))
-> (1 2 . 3)
: (make (link 1) (chain 2) (chain (cons 3 4)))
-> (1 3 . 4)
: (make (link 1) (chain 2) (chain (cons
