Re^3: PERLISP meditations

Yes but LISP has no builtin loops thats why you need recursions there which are optimized at compile-time. Perl can't do this (see Tail call) even gotos are no big help here.

You didn't provide much explanation thats why I replied with my interpretation.

Regarding iterators and next please see my update in my first post, a flexible next() is of little use if there isn't also a cmp() for abitrary iterators/data structures.

Cheers Rolf

Comment on Re^3: PERLISP meditations

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: PERLISP meditations by protist (Monk) on Sep 29, 2012 at 15:46 UTC
The lisp example was recursive, so I made mine recursive. This is nebulous, abstract, and subjective. I realize this. I was attempting to model the Perl program after the logic of the LISP program as written, not after its compiled representation. I was attempting to "think in LISP" while programming in Perl. Regardless of its utility, I provided a flexible next() because the LISP example did. I would add, however, that the flexible next is still compatible with the normal comparison as written for many types of iterations, in so long as the iterations cause A to increase, and have either no upper bound or an upper bound above B.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: PERLISP meditations
by protist (Monk) on Sep 29, 2012 at 15:46 UTC

The lisp example was recursive, so I made mine recursive. This is nebulous, abstract, and subjective. I realize this. I was attempting to model the Perl program after the logic of the LISP program as written, not after its compiled representation. I was attempting to "think in LISP" while programming in Perl.

Regardless of its utility, I provided a flexible next() because the LISP example did. I would add, however, that the flexible next is still compatible with the normal comparison as written for many types of iterations, in so long as the iterations cause A to increase, and have either no upper bound or an upper bound above B.

[reply]