Scott Burson <FSet.SLB@gmail.com> wrote:
| pit...@nhplace.com wrote:
| > Scott Burson <FSet....@gmail.com> wrote:
| > > r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
| > > ...
| > > FWIW, I'm with Rob here. �For highly functional code,
| > > "LAMBDA" is already too long -- why add two more characters?
| > But the reason #' is allowed in CL is because some of us
| > want to use it.
| Hi Kent,
| Sorry, I must not have read far enough back in the thread. I never
| meant to be voting to disallow the #' -- only saying that I am among
| those who do not use it.
And those who "agreed" with me by citing the length argument
["why add two more characters"] missed *my* point entirely!!
I, like Kent, *want* to use #' when I am *naming* a function --
yes, sometimes even an anonymous LAMBDA, in the case when there
are no free variables [since that feels like a "constant" function
to me]. My point, which the syntax quibbling seems to have missed
entirely, is that when a LAMBDA *is* capturing some free variables
into a closure, which value is then returned, then it feels [to me!]
less like a "name" and more like an "executable form", so I leave
off the #' to emphasize that aspect.
That's just my style of coding, and I'm glad I have the freedom to
choose. And I'm glad Kent has the freedom to choose *his* preferred
style, as well. And all you others, too! "All Hail King Mudball!"
 And of course, I'm speaking here of only production code,
with the source stored in files. At the REPL, I allow myself
all manner of ugly shortcuts, including FN as an abbreviation
for LAMBDA and even the #$ readmacro (with $1, $2... as params)
discussed here at length before. But I *never* permit those
in code that others might have to maintain [which includes
a future *me*!]...
Rob Warnock <firstname.lastname@example.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607