4 ms·

(a b c) is (a b c . nil). That is, (a . (b . (c . nil))). On the other hand, (a b . c) is (a . (b . c)). (Edit: rewrote post)

imdhmd 7y ago
() is equivalent to an empty list and nil according to this notation, in which case both would be proper lists. But according to pg, in bel, (a b . c) is not a proper list. Edit: I think I understand now, hmm.
- erik_seaberg 7y ago
  Think of a proper list like a degenerate tree with all the values on the left and structure on the right. A dotted list puts the last value on the right, where nil would usually be. Dotted lists are pretty rare. They mostly show up in association lists, where key/value pairs are stored as ((name . dave) (type . user)) and adding a pair to the front of the list shadows any other pairs with the same key.
nilkn 7y ago
While I think this is the correct interpretation, I do not think it's actually implied by the language specification. In fact, I think the notation (a b . c) is simply undefined -- there's no way to formally deduce what it means from what is defined.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  > 2. When the second half of a pair is a list, you can omit the dot before it and the parentheses around it. So (a . (b ...)) can be written as (a b ...). That defines (a b . c). Edit: Note that (b . c) is a list.
  - nilkn 7y ago
    It doesn't. That definition applies only to expressions like (a b c) which do not contain the dot operator at all. (a b . c) is not of the form specified. Moreover, every object of the sort defined via (a b c ...) is a proper list, and (a b . c) is, as described in the specification, not a proper list, so it can't be covered by that definition. It's true that (b . c) is a list, but the form (b . c) does not occur in the expression (a b . c) so this isn't relevant. (You'd need the expression under analysis to instead be (a (b . c)).)
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      The rule I quoted states that (a . (b . c)) can be written as (a b . c).
      - nilkn 7y ago
        That would only be true if (b . c) were a proper list. But it’s not. Strictly speaking, it’s not even a list if you go by the definition of list provided before your quoted rule. It’s later called a “dotted list” to distinguish it from a list, which must be nil-terminated. Your position boils down to claiming that the rule you quoted is intended to cover lists as well as dotted lists. As stated, it only covers the former, which leaves (a b . c) undefined.
        SamReidHughes 7y ago
        In the usage seen later throughout the document, dotted lists are a kind of list. It doesn't say its examples of how to build a list are exhaustive.
        nilkn 7y ago
        So you agree it’s ambiguous and one cannot formally deduce the meaning of the expression without making assumptions. One must assume that objects that don’t fit the definition of list can be substituted in for lists within some contexts (but not all). Beyond that, dotted lists are introduced via the undefined example (a b . c), which requires one to go even further and make a second assumption (namely, assume the intention was to refer to (a . (b . c)), then assume the quoted transformation rule applies to certain non-lists allowing that to be rewritten as (a b . c)).
        SamReidHughes 7y ago
        It is not the case that dotted lists don't fit the definition of list. What you point to as a definition wasn't a definition. Just examples. A definition would describe it as the minimal set of objects meeting those criteria. (A non-minimal set could include circular lists and/or pairs whose cdr is not a list.) Since the document does use list in ways that encompass dotted lists and goes out of its way to define proper lists, we can infer that list includes dotted lists. Also, it's a long-running convention that the term "proper X" implies there are other kinds of X's.

imdhmd 7y ago

() is equivalent to an empty list and nil according to this notation, in which case both would be proper lists. But according to pg, in bel, (a b . c) is not a proper list. Edit: I think I understand now, hmm.

erik_seaberg 7y ago
Think of a proper list like a degenerate tree with all the values on the left and structure on the right. A dotted list puts the last value on the right, where nil would usually be. Dotted lists are pretty rare. They mostly show up in association lists, where key/value pairs are stored as ((name . dave) (type . user)) and adding a pair to the front of the list shadows any other pairs with the same key.

nilkn 7y ago

While I think this is the correct interpretation, I do not think it's actually implied by the language specification. In fact, I think the notation (a b . c) is simply undefined -- there's no way to formally deduce what it means from what is defined.

SamReidHughes 7y ago
> 2. When the second half of a pair is a list, you can omit the dot before it and the parentheses around it. So (a . (b ...)) can be written as (a b ...). That defines (a b . c). Edit: Note that (b . c) is a list.
- nilkn 7y ago
  It doesn't. That definition applies only to expressions like (a b c) which do not contain the dot operator at all. (a b . c) is not of the form specified. Moreover, every object of the sort defined via (a b c ...) is a proper list, and (a b . c) is, as described in the specification, not a proper list, so it can't be covered by that definition. It's true that (b . c) is a list, but the form (b . c) does not occur in the expression (a b . c) so this isn't relevant. (You'd need the expression under analysis to instead be (a (b . c)).)
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    The rule I quoted states that (a . (b . c)) can be written as (a b . c).
    - nilkn 7y ago
      That would only be true if (b . c) were a proper list. But it’s not. Strictly speaking, it’s not even a list if you go by the definition of list provided before your quoted rule. It’s later called a “dotted list” to distinguish it from a list, which must be nil-terminated. Your position boils down to claiming that the rule you quoted is intended to cover lists as well as dotted lists. As stated, it only covers the former, which leaves (a b . c) undefined.
      - SamReidHughes 7y ago
        In the usage seen later throughout the document, dotted lists are a kind of list. It doesn't say its examples of how to build a list are exhaustive.
        nilkn 7y ago
        So you agree it’s ambiguous and one cannot formally deduce the meaning of the expression without making assumptions. One must assume that objects that don’t fit the definition of list can be substituted in for lists within some contexts (but not all). Beyond that, dotted lists are introduced via the undefined example (a b . c), which requires one to go even further and make a second assumption (namely, assume the intention was to refer to (a . (b . c)), then assume the quoted transformation rule applies to certain non-lists allowing that to be rewritten as (a b . c)).
        SamReidHughes 7y ago
        It is not the case that dotted lists don't fit the definition of list. What you point to as a definition wasn't a definition. Just examples. A definition would describe it as the minimal set of objects meeting those criteria. (A non-minimal set could include circular lists and/or pairs whose cdr is not a list.) Since the document does use list in ways that encompass dotted lists and goes out of its way to define proper lists, we can infer that list includes dotted lists. Also, it's a long-running convention that the term "proper X" implies there are other kinds of X's.