From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!129.240.148.23!uio.no!nntp.uio.no!ifi.uio.no!not-for-mail From: Erik Naggum Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,sci.math,comp.emacs Subject: Re: Lambda calculus and it relation to LISP Date: 09 Oct 2002 14:58:29 +0000 Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 28 Message-ID: <3243164309543923@naggum.no> References: <9e8ebeb2.0210041920.2e480123@posting.google.com> <7vbs69b9wr.fsf@gehennom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: maud.ifi.uio.no 1034175510 10320 129.240.65.5 (9 Oct 2002 14:58:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ifi.uio.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Oct 2002 14:58:30 GMT Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:43548 sci.math:163874 comp.emacs:25181 * David Kastrup | How does one create ad-hoc function objects in more standard variants of | Lisp? You got to be kidding. The only purpose of the horrid complexity of (lambda (f g) `(lambda (n) (,g (funcall ,f ,f ,g) n))) is to capture the values of the `f´ and `g´ bindings. In Common Lisp, we have closures and write (lambda (f g) (lambda (n) (g (funcall f f g) n))) | Emacs has no problem with that. Emacs Lisp has serious problems with closures. That is why you think you need this nonsense to begin with. One question remains: Why are you programming in Emacs Lisp while claiming to be programming in Lisp without being aware of the serious limitations of Emacs Lisp? I mean, you /got/ to be kidding when you imply that you do not know that every other modern Lisp has closures. -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.