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? > > > > I'm not arguing Common Lisp should work this way, but I seems to make > > sense in the context of a Kernel like evaluator. > > _If_ (returns-a-function) indeed returns a function, then this could be ok. > But what if it doesn't return a function? What if it is a macro that > returns just a symbol? Do you want to risk that ((return-something) > ...) has a different meaning than (funcall (return-something) ...)? > This is potentially confusing and could lead to code that is > hard to debug... > Yes you'd have to watch for symbols. The idiom would be to coerce values for use in the car: ((callable (returns-a-function?)) arg arg ...) or stick to using funcall. Matt _______________________________________________ pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
