On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Alex Knauth <alexan...@knauth.org> wrote:
> > > On Nov 12, 2016, at 4:22 PM, David Storrs <david.sto...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > The 'thunk' procedure is really useful and is sprinkled liberally > through my code because it saves keystrokes / is clearer than (lambda () > ...). I often find myself writing (lambda (x) ...) for something and > wishing that there was an equivalent of 'thunk' for that. > > There's thunk*, which produces a function that accepts any number of > arguments; is that what you're looking for? > It works, but I was more looking for one that accepts exactly one argument. > > > Is there? If not, what would be a good name for it that I could use to > create a macro for it? My current suggestion is 'thwonk', but I figured > I'd bounce it off other people first. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
