foo:bar
foo.i
foo!bar
(foo i) ; has potential problems with macro bashing though
Noncanonical but still cool stuff
given and givens
scanners
call* and defcall
I've also asked PG about strings-as-lists, which I think should be the way to go; he mentioned something vague about strings not wanting to be lists (I'll post it later when I have time). Somehow I have a gut feel that it's better that way, although we do need to have a separate character type.
> They were once but it turned out I never used this fact. The things you want to strings turn out to be different.
I don't quite understand what he was saying, I replied a follow-up on it asking him to clarify but he hasn't replied to it ^^. My assumption is it means "the things you want string to be" turn out to be different.
If a string was a linked list, the storage and processing overhead would be considerable compared to an array-based implementation with no tangible benefit - how often do you really perform a recursive process on a string or create a new string with the tail of an old string?
