Hacker News Reader

Comment by SamReidHughes | Hacker News Reader

(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)

View on HN

() 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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)).)

The rule I quoted states that (a . (b . c)) can be written as (a b . c).

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.

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.

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)).

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.

I'd disagree with you on that. If the document can't clearly define the terms it's using, it cannot function as a formal specification of a language. The writing as it stands now is far too ambiguous to serve such a role. You have no reasonable retort to me except to say that the definition wasn't even a definition, and after that there is indeed no more abstract definition you can even point to. You're left using undefined terms to defend your interpretation as the "correct" one. That's not sufficient to defend the document as a specification. In fact, that's just further criticism of it.

Like I said, I'm confident your interpretation is the intended one. But you cannot prove it as such, and that's where we disagree.

I never claimed it was a formal specification. The question was, is the meaning of (a b . c) defined, and the answer is, yes, because (b . c) is a list.

And I say the answer is no, because (b . c) is an arbitrary pair, not a list. It would appear that we’re at an impasse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com