[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: why not "stripes" in: (let ((zebra 'stripes) ... ; strings vs symbo
From: |
Emanuel Berg |
Subject: |
Re: why not "stripes" in: (let ((zebra 'stripes) ... ; strings vs symbols? |
Date: |
Tue, 31 Dec 2013 18:52:03 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org> writes:
>> differences between "stripes" and 'stripes are and
>> in which cases which notation is more
>> useful/natural?
>
> A string is not atomic.
I don't think a string is atomic either. I always
thought a "string" was syntax for a list of chars:
'(?s ?t ?r ?i ?n ?g)
But *no*,
(listp "string") ; nil
(car "string") ; error on `listp'
(cdr "string") ; same error
(first "string") ; same
(last "string") ; works (?), "string"
(nth 0 "string") ; same error
But I guess, the only thing that is truly atomic is *a
single bit* - even a bit-pattern representing a char is
a representation that can be tampered with.
What is an object in C++? A bit-pattern in memory...
When computer languages are designed (or evolve into
maturity) perhaps it makes sense to draw the line
somewhere a bit (pun) "up" from that (the binary
integer) - it depends what precision the language
offers to manipulate data on the hardware level - just
*where* it makes sense to say that something is atomic
and something not so.
Or perhaps the definition is: a data structure that
cannot be updated without destroying it and setting it
up anew: lots of atoms around, if so.
Well, what do you mean by
> It is most natural to use atoms at the base.
But I agree that it sounds very natural :)
--
underground experts united:
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573