[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Destructuring syntax
- To: DICK at MIT-AI, JONL at MIT-MC
- Subject: Re: Destructuring syntax
- From: Daniel L. Weinreb <dlw at MIT-AI>
- Date: Tue ,3 Feb 81 04:04:00 EDT
- Cc: LISP-FORUM at MIT-MC
In the LISP RECENT note (now in the LISP NEWS file) dated "Jan 27,1979"
there was presented a very succinct bnf syntax for "lambda-lists", which
would take care of LET, DEFUN, DO, PROG etc. (see item 3b in that note).
This syntax is ** fully-upward compatible **, and entirely unabmiguous
(as the bnf shows);
This has nothing to do with anything I said. I said nothing about disliking
the syntax, or that it was ambiguous. I said, as you quoted me:
Modifying all lambda-binding special forms to have a
feature that has nothing to do with lambda-binding is what I object to.
I object to the SEMANTICS.
The fact that many ordinary users are rudely
suprised when they find it is unavailable on the LISPM shows that it
must be a "natural" extension too.
This is ridiculous. All this shows is that people are using it in their
code. My interpretation is simply that this "destructuring lambda" is
an easy misconception for people to have. Just because lots of people
think something does not make it right. The number of dialects that
support it and the number of users who, having seen the announcement of
the feature, started using it, does not affect my opinion.