[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: specification by implications and example

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 17 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 17 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Per Bothner wrote:

> > The examples that follow, however, are all of the shape
> >  (set!  (procedure-name ...) ...)
> That *is* a procedure application.  I guess the correct R5RS terminology
> is that the first set! operand can be a "procedure call".

Yes, this *is* a procedure application.  But it's far from the only
way to write down a procedure application.  In Scheme, for instance, I
can write

  ((f x) y)

as a procedure application, or

  ((lambda (x) x) y)

as a procedure application.  Can I therefore write

  (set! ((lambda (x) x) y) V)

using your SRFI?  Your follow-up message suggests not, but nothing in
the SRFI precludes this.  Furthermore, precluding this seems to be
inconsistent with your desire to be "in the ``spirit of Scheme''".