[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: LAMBDA-FORM (Version 2)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@scrc-stony-brook.arpa>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Issue: LAMBDA-FORM (Version 2)
- From: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
- Date: Sat, 17 Sep 88 16:54:47 BST
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: Kent M Pitman's message of Fri, 16 Sep 88 19:01 EDT
BTW, I would prefer that LAMBDA be a special form rather than a macro
so that (LAMBDA ...) rather than (FUNCTION (LAMBDA ...)) could be
considered the more fundamental form.
> There are several ways of rationalizing the dual existence of
> (lambda ...) and #'(lambda ...).
> One says that you'd have flushed #'(lambda ...) if only you could have
> but you couldn't for compatibility reasons. I personally think the
> situation is more complicated than this,
I do too. For one thing, I may be convenient to speak of a single
case, FUNCTION, rather than two, LAMBDA-expressions and (FUNCTION
> Another argument says that (LAMBDA ...) creates a closure, while
> (FUNCTION ...) accesses a function by name -- and that (LAMBDA ...)
> is the name of the closure which is created by (LAMBDA ...).
> [...] I'm a fan of this argument.
I guess I am too, given the overlong discussion of whether FUNCTION
should simply access a value or create one on the general CL list.