From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad) Date: 1997/05/28 Message-ID: <3073830464727184@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 244528498 References: <5mfos6$ngp$1@masala.cc.uh.edu> <5mhh8h$gkq@web.nmti.com> mail-copies-to: never Organization: Naggum Software; +47 2295 0313; http://www.naggum.no Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++ * Peter da Silva | There's really not much more to lisp than that. Toss in COND, SET, LAMBDA, | and EVAL and I think you've got it. (Don't beat me up too hard if I missed | something, it's been a while since I did a lot of lisp). And I'll bet you | could implement SET by CARing and CDRing around in OBLIST. "a while"? looks like it was 25 years since you last saw Lisp. *sigh* in Common Lisp (since 1984), you could use hash tables for sets. as for your theory of dereferencing pointers, a CONS is an object with two slots. CAR returns the _contents_ of the first slot, CDR the second. if you pass an object not created by CONS to CAR, you get a type error. #\Erik -- if we work harder, will obsolescence be farther ahead or closer?