Al,

> Al wrote:
>> Sebastian wrote:
>>      (curry cons-stream <> stream)
>> <=>  (l (object stream) (cons-stream object stream))
>
> Actually, that would be:
>
>       (curry cons-stream <> stream)
>  <=>  (l (object) (cons-stream object stream))

You are right, of course. Sorry for the mistake.

If you allow me, I will skip the discussion on the number
of keystrokes involved in typing...

> P.S. The procedural implementation of curry would choke on this
> example, if we assume the usual definition of cons-stream (a macro
> that delays its second argument).

Oops! This is really serious. I will come back to this when
addressing the semantics of the mechanism.

However reads this: Please refer to Al's posting with
subject line > Problems with "curry"'s formal specification <

Sebastian.