Alessio Stalla <alessiostalla@...> writes:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Matthew Swank <akopa.gmane.poster@...> wrote:
Pascal Costanza <pc@...> writes:
On 25 May 2011, at 04:51, Matthew D. Swank wrote:
However, consider the following:
((returns-a-function) arg arg ...)
Would it be reasonable to allow this as a legal form as well?
While in principle I like such a thing, I think it doesn't play well with Lisp-2 (or more specifically, with Common Lisp). If ((whatever) ...) is a valid expression, then one would expect (let ((foo (whatever))) (foo ...)) to be equivalent, but it's not. And you can't use flet/labels for the same effect.
Well, let bindings could be extended to use an operator to specify the namespace:
(let (((function foo) (lambda (arg ...) ...)) (bar (lambda (arg ...) ...))) (foo ...) (funcall bar ...))
and flet/labels would transform into a generalized let binding.
This would make the standard transformation of let -> function call a little problematic, however.
I suppose at the bottom of all this is an implied primitive binding operator for operators: perhaps flambda!
Matt