[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SRFI 31 procedure vs. named-lambda (2)
Al Petrofsky writes:
> I agree with you that most of the arguments against named-lambda are
Thanks for your support.
> I dislike the name PROCEDURE because it doesn't mix well with the name
> of the PROCEDURE? procedure. Both LAMBDA and PROCEDURE produce
> procedures. The difference has nothing to with the procedure data
Yes. But doesn't the fact that `procedure' does produce precisely the
same procedures as does `lambda' support the point of view that one
should use the same predicate, `procedure?', for checking? I didn't
imagine that `procedure' should produce a new data type.
Following your line of thought, wouldn't we obtain a new instance of
the `cons' vs. `pair?' mismatch?
> The difference is that one form provides a name that can be
> used recursively by the thing which is being named. Hence the name of
> the special form should derive from the words "name" or "recursion",
> which is why I find both NAMED-LAMBDA and REC superior to PROCEDURE.
Actually I was using the term `recursion' in my code, but renamed it
`procedure' in the SRFI for two reasons:
- I found that this name matched well with the existing `procedure?'
- The `procedure' form allows to express any procedure that can be
written in Scheme, so I thought the name was more than appropriate.
> After some thought and a look at the rrrs archives, the idea that
> appeals most to me is to revive the well-established and generally
> useful rec form, and enhance it just like define so that
Agreeing on functionality, it remains to find the right balance
between respecting the history of Scheme (`rec') and providing (what
seems to me) a more systematic name (`procedure').
What do you think?