2016-09-23 18:44 GMT+02:00 Panicz Maciej Godek :
> I hope you don't mind me having dug this thread up, with an idea that is
> only loosely related with the original one.
>
> Recently I've been doing a small project in Clojure, and I've found that
> it provides a function called "partial" that perf
I hope you don't mind me having dug this thread up, with an idea that is
only loosely related with the original one.
Recently I've been doing a small project in Clojure, and I've found that it
provides a function called "partial" that performs a sort of partial
application.
With guile's curried d
> One related thing I sometimes lack is:
>=20
> (define-syntax-rule (thunk exp ...)
> (lambda () exp ...))
>=20
> (Found in Racket, notably.)
IMO, it's much more useful to have `λ', together with an Emacs hack
that makes it easy to type. In the last few years I even switched to
omitting the
taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> One related thing I sometimes lack is:
>>
>> (define-syntax-rule (thunk exp ...)
>> (lambda () exp ...))
>
> My understanding is that that'd be (^ exp ...).
That's true given the c
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> One related thing I sometimes lack is:
>
> (define-syntax-rule (thunk exp ...)
> (lambda () exp ...))
My understanding is that that'd be (^ exp ...). `thunk' might be nicer
for one's tastes, but some consistency between different people's code
would
Panicz Maciej Godek skribis:
> I think it would be best to extend SRFI-26 with the option of using
> <1>, <2>, ... placeholders, where the resulting lambda would get the
> arity indicated by the highest placeholder. Also, it should support
> nested expressions.
> Personally, I'd prefer it over th
Hi!
2014/1/23 Mark H Weaver :
> Hello all,
>
> For a short time I liked 'cut' from SRFI-26, but I soon became
> frustrated by its limitations, most notably not being able to reference
> the arguments out of order or within nested expressions. I don't like
> the inconsistent style that results whe
On 23/01/14 04:51, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> For a short time I liked 'cut' from SRFI-26, but I soon became
> frustrated by its limitations, most notably not being able to reference
> the arguments out of order or within nested expressions. I don't like
> the inconsistent style that r
Hello all,
For a short time I liked 'cut' from SRFI-26, but I soon became
frustrated by its limitations, most notably not being able to reference
the arguments out of order or within nested expressions. I don't like
the inconsistent style that results when I use 'cut' wherever possible
and 'lambd
