My apologies for the number of error messages which have been echoed
to the list today. These seem to have been erroneously generated
by a target site in Hong Kong and fed into the list at Yale. I'm
working with the people at Yale to try to solve the problem.
Kevin
>Most Lisp dialects don't have any sort of destructuring for abstract data
>types, but I question whether destructuring is really all that useful
>anyway. If you have a type with 20 or 30 components -- which is not all
>that unusual, in my experience -- it's much easier to grab t
> 1) LISP is usually interpreted though most LISP systems allow
> compilation too.
This is not really a language issue, more a question of implementation
tradition. Most Lisp implementations have interpreters, though some
always compile.
However, a fair number of programmers always, or almost
Dave writes:
Why doesn't Haskell allow you to name components? I know that you
don't *need* to name them, but, like Sandra, I have also seen data
structures with almost two dozen fields. Pattern matching is nice,
but it seems like changing the representation of something could
potent
Thanks Sandra for the corrections --- glad I broadcast my reply rather
than mailing directly.
I knew compilation was the more common route --- just didn't emphsise it
enough. The point I totally failed to make was that having an interpreter
can be pretty nice. (The work I'm doing at the momen
Most Lisp dialects don't have any sort of destructuring for abstract data
types, but I question whether destructuring is really all that useful
anyway. If you have a type with 20 or 30 components -- which is not all
that unusual, in my experience -- it's much easier to grab the ones
A few more differences between LISP and Haskell:
1) LISP is usually interpreted though most LISP systems allow compilation too.
At the moment, Haskell is a compiled language (though Gofer comes pretty
close to being a Haskell interpreter).
(This is probably the reason for the "Haskell
This message contained a lot of inaccuracies
A few more differences between LISP and Haskell:
1) LISP is usually interpreted though most LISP systems allow compilation too.
At the moment, Haskell is a compiled language (though Gofer comes pretty
close to being a Haskell interp
In answer to your questions:
1) How does functional programming relate to LISP?
Lisp (and Scheme) have first class functions and lexical scoping, the
same as Haskell. At some level you can claim than any language with
these features (including ML) has a strong functional subset.
Certainly this
