On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 08:32:06PM +0100, Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Alexander Burger
> wrote:
>
> > Right Lindsay, this is called "nconc" in other versions of Lisp. There was
> > the
> > convention - for some obscure reason - to put an "n" in front of the name
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Right Lindsay, this is called "nconc" in other versions of Lisp. There was the
> convention - for some obscure reason - to put an "n" in front of the names of
> destructive list operations: nconc, nreverse, ndelete ...
In case someone wo
Hi Danilo,
Your example helped.
I can reason with (conc equences) now =)
/Lindsay
> AFAIK there is only one empty `list' in PL, and that is `NIL'. So
> after `conc'atenating to it's end it would no longer be empty.
>
> [de ex2 []
> [let [R [list]]
> [do 10
> [conc R [list 'A]] ]
>
Thank you Alex.
Your explanation of atomic arguments is particularly enlightening.
/Lindsay
> So as a result atomic arguments are simply lost. This happens also if the
> atom
> is the first argument
>
>: (conc 'a (1 2))
>-> (1 2)
>
>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:31:20AM +0100, pd wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Lindsay John Lawrence <
> > Apologies for bothering everyone with this. It took some research (there
> > is surprising little discussion of the function online or even in most
> > books), but I at least understan
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:47 AM, Lindsay John Lawrence <
lawrence.lindsayj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Apologies for bothering everyone with this. It took some research (there
> is surprising little discussion of the function online or even in most
> books), but I at least understand how it works now
Hi Lindsay.
AFAIK there is only one empty `list' in PL, and that is `NIL'. So
after `conc'atenating to it's end it would no longer be empty.
How about:
[de ex1 []
[make
[do 10
[link 'A] ] ] ]
[de ex2 []
[let [R [list]]
[do 10
[conc R [list 'A]] ]
# Will have to
Apologies for bothering everyone with this. It took some research (there is
surprising little discussion of the function online or even in most books),
but I at least understand how it works now.
It seems that it is not often used in everyday programming: "It is a good
idea to leave the use of NCO
I tried conc to an empty list on both 32 and 64 bit versions of picolisp
I even installed SBCL just to try the similar 'nconc' on that platform.
The results are consistent for all of them.
I just don't understand why Is it simply 'standard', historical
reasons? because of the way evaluation w
conc does not rewrite N if N is an empty list.
# 1.
: (let (N '()) (conc N '(A)))
-> (A)
# 2
: (let (N '()) (conc N '(A)) N)
-> NIL
# 3.
: (let (N '(NIL)) (conc N '(A)) N)
-> (NIL A)
# 4.
: (let (N '()) (setq N (conc N '(A))) N)
-> (A)
In #2 above, I was expecting N to be (A)
If N is not empty, a
10 matches
Mail list logo
