> From: Yi DAI
>
> I don't see the point why Scheme provides the general
> `and' and `or' as primitive macros (which does stand
> in our way when we wanna (apply and things) instead
> of primitive procedures. For efficiency?
This suggestion was thought of and rejected dozens
of times before you
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Klaus Schilling wrote:
>
> As a function, gor needs to have its arguments evaluated before the
> actual application takes place, moreover, the order of evaluation is
> not specified.
>
> Hence
>
> (define x 0)
> (gor (= x 0) (/ x))
>
> gives a numerical overflow er
From: Yi DAI
Subject: About the primitive macros `and' and `or'
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 13:18:01 +0800
> Hi,
>
>
> I don't see the point why Scheme provides the general `and' and `or' as
> primitive macros (which does stand in our way when we wanna (
On Fri, 2009-12-25 at 13:18 +0800, Yi DAI wrote:
> If anyone can give a reasonable explanation, I may buy it. Otherwise,
> I will go with my version in the future. And I suggest Guile or the
> standard committee fix this annoying `bug' of Scheme.
I, for one, cannot find fault with your suggestion
Hi,
I don't see the point why Scheme provides the general `and' and `or' as
primitive macros (which does stand in our way when we wanna (apply and
things) instead of primitive procedures. For efficiency? I don't think there
would be much compared to the following definitions:
(define (gand . l)
