Hello, Eduardo Bellani <ebell...@gmail.com> writes:
> The old behavior was an eval on a form if that form was not a list of > strings. The implicit expectation was for a list of strings to be > returned by that eval call. > > The above seems to be a raw attempt to evaluate a function form. In that > case, it seems more elegant to be more explicit and do a > > (apply (car scope) (cdr scope)) > > > This also allows for passing arguments to the function without using the > full power of eval. > > What do you guys think? On the contrary, I think the above is a bit ambiguous, and doesn't bring anything, since :scope (foo bar baz) can also be written, if really needed, :scope (lambda () (foo bar baz)) I'd favor clarity here and suggest to accept a function of no argument. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
