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



_______________________________________________
pro mailing list
pro@common-lisp.net
http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro