On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Marco Antoniotti
<antoniotti.ma...@disco.unimib.it> wrote:
> Hi
> I don't think there is a reasonable objection to forbid a form like
> ((returns-something-funcallable arg1 arg2 ... argN) 1 2 3 ... N)
> from "working as expected".
Me neither ;)
> As Martin pointed out, if the return value of
> the form is a "macro" then this would have to be interpreted in the
> "regular" evaluation regime.
> As per "extending" LET there have been a lot of proposals... IMHO a nice one
> is to go the LOOP way :)
> (LETS [var <symbol> <form>]*
> [fun (<name> <arglist> <body>)]*
> [labels (<name> <arglist> <body>)]*
> [values <list> <form>]*
> IN
> <body>)
> Of course you can add some ways of extending the syntax by having something
> like
> (def-lets-binding <tag> ...)
> You get the idea....
It's not about syntax, it's about a missing feature: the ability to
bind a symbol's function "cell" to a value that's not known at compile
time. To me, that's a limitation of the spec; given that we have
funcall, it's obviously easy to implement and would be symmetrical to
let. With such a feature, the gap between Lisp-1 and Lisp-2 would be
effectively reduced:
(let ((list 42))
(flet ((list (compose #'nreverse #'list)))
(list #'list list)))
=> (42 #<compiled-function (lambda (...) ...)>)
The code above is horrible, but you get the idea.
Alessio
_______________________________________________
pro mailing list
pro@common-lisp.net
http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
