Good functional programming habbit?
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Searching some references
Next: Comparing Lisp to Python, what you consider more important:speed or macros.
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 1 May 2010 16:27 Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> writes: > On 2010-04-30 16:45:47 +0100, Tim Bradshaw said: >> >> There is quite an interesting symmetry between multiple values and >> function arguments. > > And of course, that's because, if you think of CPS-transforming > things, they are in fact exactly the same thing: values are the > arguments you pass to your continuation. This must be well-known, > though I've only just realised it. In Scheme, multiple-values can only be handled by a function. http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/r5rs-Z-H-9.html#%_idx_574 -- __Pascal Bourguignon__
From: Xah Lee on 1 May 2010 17:02 On May 1, 7:23 am, RG <rNOSPA...(a)flownet.com> wrote: > That Lisp does not distinguish between expressions and statements is a > useful property, but it is not the property that makes Lisp functional. > The property that makes Lisp -- or any language -- functional is > providing support for first-class functions. no, not really. most of the discussions trying to define or characterize functional programing are idiotic. if i'd pick on poster's argument that makes the most sense, that'd be Kenny's. Xah
From: His kennyness on 1 May 2010 17:26 Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > His kennyness <kentilton(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Tim Bradshaw wrote: >>> On 2010-04-29 16:42:18 +0100, RG said: >>> >>>> You know, Kenny, the arrogant Lisp weenie act would go over a lot better >>>> if you actually knew what you're talking about. >>>> >>>> ? (defun foo () (values)) >>>> FOO >>>> ? (defun baz () (multiple-value-call (lambda (x) x) (foo))) >>>> BAZ >>>> ? (baz) >>>>> Error: >>> THis is not really any different to >>> >>> (defun foo (x y) >>> (cons x y)) >>> >>> (foo 1) >>> >> the vastly more interesting point is that all these yobbos are useless >> usenet roadkill. The point was: lisp is indeed a functional language >> (in the non-crazy obsessive sense) because every lisp form returns a >> value. > > > Would it kill you to say that in lisp, any form can be used as an > expression, whether it returns 0, 1, or more values, or whether it > returns at all, instead of saying something as wrong as "in lisp every > form returns a value"? You seek a usenettian immaculate precision from which Grand Pontificators are exempt. This clash is the root of all your evils. Choose one: usenettian hair-splitting angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin, or the grabdness of kennyspeak. kxo
From: Captain Obvious on 1 May 2010 18:58 XL> if i'd pick on poster's argument that makes the most sense, that'd be XL> Kenny's. Sure, mindless trolls like each other.
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 2 May 2010 01:12
On 2010-05-01 13:53:01 -0400, RG said: > But you can't have it both ways. Either you grant me the same > linguistic latitude that you claim for yourself, or you're a hypocrite. You only get that latitude when you're usenet royalty. Maybe if you signed your decrees^H^H^H^H^H^H^H posts "Emperor Ron," or "His Ronnyness?" ;^) warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro |