🚀 go-pugleaf

Stephen E. Witham:
> Lisp has two features: an internal form for programs, and a (over:-)
> simple syntax.  I think with an "infix Scheme," having a
> well-defined internal form would give you most of the power.  You'd
> need a "code-constant" or
> "internal-form-of-this-quoted-code-fragment" construct, e.g.,
>
> x = quote {
>     function ( a, b ) {
>         return a+b;
>         }
>     };
>
> (That's not a lambda expression, it's a quoted lambda expression.)


Why such a complicated expression?  Why not just
x =: +

Then, presumably, when you say 
   1 x 1
the answer would be
2

Or is it important to quote the thing?  You could always say
x =: '+'

(too simplistic?  what if you want to have a code constant for some
existing function, independent of its symbol?  Well, you could always
adopt a secondary quoting scheme....  Like, maybe
x =: + quoted
)

Requiring a lambda expression to express an anonymous function seems
to me to be one of LISP's flaws, not one of its advantages.  Or, put
another way, infix notation already has a clear scheme for
representing arguments, why not take advantage of it?

-- 
Raul <rockwell@socrates.umd.edu>