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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo