On 12/16/2010 11:34 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Per Bothner scripsit:
>
>> Cute. But there seems to be a mistake in the definitions of lambda
>> and lambda* - they have the same definitions and expansions in terms
>> of core:lambda.
>
> No, the former is defined as (core:lambda (id) ...) and the latter as
> (core:lambda id ...). The names may well be reversed, but I'll wait
> for the author to weigh in on that.
Regardless:
(lambda
(<pat> <body> <body> ...)
(<pat> <body> <body> ...)
...)
is incompatible with core:lambda - i.e. it is not a super-set of traditional
lambda, and it's not just a matter of rare corner cases. That makes it
unacceptable, IMO.
For example this would be mis-parsed in an unexpected manner:
(lambda (x y) (list y x))
My definition *is* (I believe) compatible (i.e. a super-set) of traditional
lambda.
--
--Per Bothner
p...@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
