dragoncoder047

> I'm not sure I could detect that invalid `(return)`. If you want to fix it, I think that the place to do the check would be inside where lambdas...

Also, while I am less hesitant to try to implement `tagbody` and `go` in uLisp (because it's basically [goto](https://xkcd.com/292/)), it probably would have the same approach as [how I implemented...

Another idea: `block` and `return-from` are pretty much semantically equivalent to `catch` and `throw`, except that `catch`/`throw` evaluate the "tag" argument (so it must be quoted or a keyword) and...

> How would you implement the example without this? Ideally it would be with keywords - you would do `(:area object)` if it is just a property, or `(object :area)`...

I just had another idea last night. Consider this line: https://github.com/technoblogy/ulisp-esp/blob/f22e87e8abbec16fdb72ea59a7feef160e4db70b/ulisp-esp-comments.ino#L6826 The meaning of this is that builtin symbols evaluate to themselves, that is: ``` > foo Error: undefined: foo...

> Also, would you still be able to do this? > > http://forum.ulisp.com/t/extending-ulisps-built-in-operators/1181 Certainly, since the mechanism would be the same (all the change really does is change how the...

I might use the "old" (i.e. current) behavior of `Case` in TEHSSL, because then you don't have to write `(` `)` around a function that is comprised entirely of a...

I already did find that someone on the forum was able to run uLisp in its own freeRTOS task (http://forum.ulisp.com/t/ulisp-as-freertos-task/1126), but that was still only one task; the other tasks...

I got to thinking about this a little more lately and I don't actually think that any C code changes would be necessary. The way it would work is that...

Well, that would be the problem inherent with the multiple-FreeRTOS-threads approach. The continuation-passing approach still only uses one thread and AFAIK it can be done in pure Lisp, so it...