Mark H Weaver writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>>> Scheme has a very useful property which your proposed syntax would
>>> destroy: any valid expression can be substituted for any other valid
>>> expression, and the result has the same meaning except for the
>>> substitution.
>>
>> guile> (displ
David Kastrup writes:
>> Scheme has a very useful property which your proposed syntax would
>> destroy: any valid expression can be substituted for any other valid
>> expression, and the result has the same meaning except for the
>> substitution.
>
> guile> (display . (close (current-output-port)
Mark H Weaver writes:
> However, (f . (g x y)) is read as (f g x y), so it's impossible for
> 'eval' to distinguish these two cases. Unfortunately, (f g x y) has a
> very different meaning than (apply f (g x y)). The first means to apply
> 'f' to three arguments. The second means to apply 'g'
Mark H Weaver writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>>
>> A list in dotted tail position is evaluated via (map ... eval) rather
>> than (eval ...). I don't see much of a problem with that.
>
> No, it's worse than that. I think you failed to understand my point,
> so let me try again. You propose th
David Kastrup writes:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> David Kastrup writes:
>>> I guess my "real" problem is that I'd like to do call wrapping by writing
>>>
>>> (lambda ( . x) (fun . x))
>>>
>>> instead of having to write
>>>
>>> (lambda ( . x) (apply fun x))
>>>
>>> I assume eval is not supposed
David Kastrup writes:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> David Kastrup writes:
>>> I guess my "real" problem is that I'd like to do call wrapping by writing
>>>
>>> (lambda ( . x) (fun . x))
>>>
>>> instead of having to write
>>>
>>> (lambda ( . x) (apply fun x))
>>>
>>> I assume eval is not supposed
Mark H Weaver writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>> I guess my "real" problem is that I'd like to do call wrapping by writing
>>
>> (lambda ( . x) (fun . x))
>>
>> instead of having to write
>>
>> (lambda ( . x) (apply fun x))
>>
>> I assume eval is not supposed to try dealing with dotted lists?
>
David Kastrup writes:
> I guess my "real" problem is that I'd like to do call wrapping by writing
>
> (lambda ( . x) (fun . x))
>
> instead of having to write
>
> (lambda ( . x) (apply fun x))
>
> I assume eval is not supposed to try dealing with dotted lists?
The problem is that (f . (g x y)) is
Hi, I am not sure whether this is a Scheme feature, but it seems
inconvenient that
((lambda (a . b) b) 1 . 2)
bombs out. The same with
(apply (lambda (a . b) b) 1 2)
I guess my "real" problem is that I'd like to do call wrapping by writing
(lambda ( . x) (fun . x))
instead of having to writ
