(plus 1 . (2 3)) is indistinguishable from (plus 1 2 3), so there's not
"special" being permitted here.
Your other example could only ever be valid if the "dotted" form always
evaluates to a list. As such it would always be equivalent to:
(apply plus 1 two-three)
so there's nothing new of value here.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Sascha Ziemann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the dot notation is allowed in function definitions:
>
> (define (plus first . rest)
> (if (null? rest)
> first
> (+ first (apply plus rest))))
>
> (plus 1 2 3) => 6
>
> And in literals:
>
> (plus 1 . (2 3)) => 6
>
> But not in function applications:
>
> (define two-three '(2 3))
> (plus 1 . two-three) => ERROR
>
> How about relaxing this restriction?
>
> Regards
> Sascha
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scheme-reports mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
>
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
