[Pils] is an anagram of [Lisp]. It is a tiny lisp, hacked in four days or maybe five, and has never been seriously tested. I've made it as Tcl-ish as possible.

'''Differences to Tcl'''

   * Tcl has 1 (one) data type: [everything is a string]; Pils has 2 (two) data types: the atom and the list.
   * The procedure ''string'' has the new sub command ''append''. (Btw, by formal reasons, it would be nice to see it also in regular Tcl. I think that it is not really ''expensive''!)

'''Differences to Lisp'''

   * The list is not cons'd but instead a simple Tcl list. (This idea is stolen from NewLisp [http://newlisp.org/].)
   * No cons, car, cdr, instead [lindex] etc. No define but instead [proc]. (*1)
   * No symbols as every atom can serve as such by saying ''(set varName)'' or using the shortcut ''$varName''. (I told you. As Tcl-ish as possible.)

'''Differences to the state of should-be'''

   * for and foreach not yet implemented
   * many many ... hrmpf ... bux?

----
(*1) [RS]: When you're in the process of making a Lisp-like language, I think the unification in [Scheme]
 (define var 'value)
 (define (function x y) (+ x y))
is a good idea (and can of course easily be had in Tcl, see the [Scheme] page). The only trouble is that argument-less functions can not be expressed this way...

[wdb]: This leads to the consequence that procs are referenced by vars as in Scheme. My attempt was to make it extremely Tcl-ish. In Tcl, proc names are not variable names but can be thought of as ''pointers''. Of course, you can always say:
 (set x list) ;; line 1
 ($x a b c)   ;; line 2
 ;; equivalent to (list a b c), note the shortcut $
Here, ''list'' is a pointer to a procedure, ''x'' is a pointer to a string constant. In line 2, we see a pointer to a pointer to a procedure. That wasn't my intention, but instead to combine the minimalism of Tcl with the ease of Lisp.