From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Functional programming Date: 1999/11/09 Message-ID: <3151152744770363@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 546486825 References: <941894743.991192@lxms.cit.org.by> <941902054.108718@lxms.cit.org.by> <3150898143617424@naggum.no> <3151149400110441@naggum.no> mail-copies-to: never X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 942163947 10683 193.71.66.49 (9 Nov 1999 16:12:27 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879 or +1 510 435 8604; fax: +47 2210 9077; http://www.naggum.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Nov 1999 16:12:27 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Michael Livshin | the Scheme "moral equivalent" (if we assume that a hook is a list | of symbols, not closures) would be: | | (map (lambda (sym . args) (apply (eval sym) args)) | ...) | | that's too easy, so I probably don't get something here ;(. indeed. the point is that you have to write your own FUNCALL by hand. I also happen to do (apply #'funcall ) at times. I guess Scheme's (apply (eval (car list)) (cdr list)) is much more _elegant_. hee hee! I think the arguments for much of Scheme's purported elegance are really stupid and it doesn't help when Schemers don't even recognize that they are arguing against electronic gas lighters because they can make do with their beautifully carved flint stones. #:Erik -- Attention Microsoft Shoppers! MS Monopoly Money 6.0 are now worthless.