> You could capture its value (not the parameter itself) inside the > delayed function, though.
This, having to capture the value of parameters before the lazy evaluation, would entirely defeat the purpose of using parameters IN MY SITUATION, which is being able to avoid specifying all the function arguments. > Actually, you don't. The appearance of the PARAMETERIZE macro is > deceiving. The "i" in > > (parameterize ((i 10)) ...) > > is not restricted to being a simple variable name, as in the comparable > LET special form. It can be any expression whatever that evaluates to > a parameter object; specifically, it can be a call on a procedure that > returns the desired parameter object. Similarly, this would entirely defeat the purpose of using parameters IN MY SITUATION, since the functions called from the body of the parameterize would still need some way to get the parameter objects. In consequence, I don't think parameters are useful at all in the situation I originally described. Even alternatives such as using structures (records), which I discarded for reasons I already explained, would be better than parameters IN THE SITUATION I DESCRIBED. I do appreciate your thoughts on this problem, but I think it would be benefical of you to re read my original message to understand the actual problem I'm trying to solve (and why parameters are a very lousy solution). Thanks, John. Alejo. http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/ _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
