[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Function cells
- To: TIM%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
- Subject: Re: Function cells
- From: Bobrow.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
- Date: Thu ,1 Sep 83 17:30:00 EDT
- Cc: Bobrow.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA, Deutsch.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA, lisp-forum@MIT-MC.ARPA, Julian Padget <PADGET@UTAH-20.ARPA>, Teitelman.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
- In-reply-to: <[MIT-OZ].TIM. 1-Sep-83 07:37:32>
There is a difference in meaning between:
(fun x y) and (FUNCALL fun x y).
In the former case, one expects the meaning of fun to be independent of
the context of the call. In the latter, to be dependent of parameters
passed in to the environment. One can take the point of view that one
doesn't want to distinguish these cases, but I maintain that the code is
clearer when you do make the distinction for the call. Similarly, I
have seen proposals for doing object oriented programming by having the
function name evaluated in the context of the first argument to the
function (which would in fact be a closure on some functions and
variables). I object to that as well.
So for me the question is not about efficiency and limitation of name
space, but of what distinctions you want to make apparent at a call.