This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 105 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 105 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
David A. Wheeler scripsit: > Regarding "nfx": The reader returns a list with the "nfx" symbol in > the front. The user then decides what to do. There's *NO* requirement > that the result *EVER* be passed to eval, by the way; the user might > have a completely different process for handling the result from read. > This adds flexibility at little cost. Quite so. It should be mentioned that R6RS and R7RS systems cannot reliably implement "nfx" as a procedure, because (in a rampant case of ML-envy) there are no equality relations between procedures in those standards. Thus a procedure like this is not portable: (define (test-plus f) (if (eqv? f +) "plus" "not plus")) (test-plus +) => undefined -- I Hope, Sir, that we are not John Cowan mutually Un-friended by this cowan@xxxxxxxx Difference which hath happened http://www.ccil.org/~cowan betwixt us. --Thomas Fuller, Appeal of Injured Innocence (1659)