Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

specification by implications and example Matthias Felleisen (16 Jan 2000 14:49 UTC)
Re: specification by implications and example Per Bothner (16 Jan 2000 21:33 UTC)
Re: specification by implications and example Shriram Krishnamurthi (16 Jan 2000 23:28 UTC)
Re: specification by implications and example Per Bothner (17 Jan 2000 00:14 UTC)
Re: specification by implications and example Matthias Felleisen (17 Jan 2000 00:34 UTC)
Re: specification by implications and example Shriram Krishnamurthi (17 Jan 2000 00:52 UTC)
Re: specification by implications and example Per Bothner (17 Jan 2000 01:38 UTC)

Re: specification by implications and example Shriram Krishnamurthi 16 Jan 2000 23:28 UTC

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''".

'shriram