LispForum

Eventually the charts will get more complicated, and I think it will be more useful for the user to have a little more flexibility in how they specify things. I still advise you to use functions. The primary role of macros is to provide for syntactic abstraction. The primary role of functions is to...

Why not just use a function?

I don't know about a "favorite" feature, but one underrated Common Lisp feature I appreciate is its pathnames support. Yes, some of it is too complicated, under-specified, or plain historical baggage, but in languages that don't support pathnames, the typical approach to dealing with them ...

In this particular case, maybe it would be sufficient to use double-floats:

yes, nevermind the convention, this was just test of my understanding of language btw. dynamic binding of a is 0, not symbol a No. When you evaluate (test 'a) the variable a gets bound to the symbol a. Then Lisp will inspect the binding of variable a to get the symbol a (i.e. evaluate a), and pass ...

Just a quick note: arguments are always passed by value, i.e. copied, in Common Lisp, but here "arguments" denotes "implicit pointers to objects" (disregarding optimization tricks). That is why the function below will never change whatever object it is called with. (defun foo (x)...

Not really a thought about the structuring, but I noticed that the subtitle for the Vim section is wrong.