Subject: Re: (SETF (FUNCTION FOO) (FUNCTION BAR)) ? From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 24 Nov 2000 19:41:33 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Rainer Joswig <firstname.lastname@example.org> | ** Now I want to write the code without using FUNCALL. ** | | Just assume that I want that. I think you need a more modern Lisp, because this is just like someone complaining wildly about Common Lisp having upper-case symbol names and walking off huffing and puffing to make his own Common Lisp look- alike with lower-case symbol names. | What I want Common Lisp to be, is a language to implement the domain | language and to provide the implementor of the domain specific code | (maybe me, maybe somebody else) a comfortable and concise environment. And you can't do this if you have to use funcall? May I suggest you wrap some macrology around your function definitions that define both a lexical variable and lexical macro that expands to a funcall of the variable for functional arguments if you want to be able to write "normal"-looking code? This should not be intractably hard and it would be a fairly intelligent contribution to a corpus of "domain language" techniques. #:Erik -- Solution to U.S. Presidential Election Crisis 2000: Let Texas secede from the Union and elect George W. Bush their very first President. All parties, states would rejoice.