From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rusi Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: How to quote a list of functions? Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <871tfdjqjx.fsf@mbork.pl> <87zj1vddkz.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <87mvxug2us.fsf@nl106-137-147.student.uu.se> <87vbch1gb0.fsf@nl106-137-147.student.uu.se> <87wpwudby7.fsf@nl106-137-147.student.uu.se> <87zj1qbwxs.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <87r3n2btjl.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <87mvxqbooi.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> <8737zhcsvo.fsf@nl106-137-147.student.uu.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1439904092 29068 80.91.229.3 (18 Aug 2015 13:21:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:21:32 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 18 15:21:21 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRgpM-0005zF-H7 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:21:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43682 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRZ69-0005rv-IA for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:06:09 -0400 X-Received: by 10.13.225.206 with SMTP id k197mr4510549ywe.40.1439874231464; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:03:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.62.68 with SMTP id w4mr298774igr.12.1439874231422; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 22:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Original-Path: usenet.stanford.edu!69no1809481qgi.0!news-out.google.com!o13ni16148igw.0!nntp.google.com!x6no1619301igd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=61.1.38.47; posting-account=mBpa7woAAAAGLEWUUKpmbxm-Quu5D8ui Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.1.38.47 User-Agent: G2/1.0 Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:03:51 +0000 Original-Xref: usenet.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:214378 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:106669 Archived-At: On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 10:16:29 AM UTC+5:30, Drew Adams wrote: > > when and why are functions refered to not > > using symbols to designate them? > > Anonymous functions. > http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Anonymous-Functions.html > > In Emacs Lisp, a named function is named by a symbol. > > In Common Lisp, a named function is named by either a symbol > or a list of the form `(setf SYMBOL)'. > http://clhs.lisp.se/Body/26_glo_f.htm#function_name > > > Isn't the most natural way to refer to a function (or > > anything else) just to type its name? > > Natural? Please take a poll of the biomass, and get back to us. > > > What are we gaining from having people and not > > computers deal with this distinction? > > A function has other aspects (signature, in particular), > besides it name. > > Just as a symbol has aspects (variable value, plist) other > than its name and its function value. > > What do we "gain" by such distinctions? > > The distinctions are not just mental constructs; they are > real - real distinctions wrt behavior. > > In the case of people, it's observable behavior that we > care about. We typically don't care about all of the > computer-level behavior. But we do care about behavior > distinctions because we make use of them. > > We can make _use_ of the different aspects of functions, > symbols, whatever. You ignore such differences at your > own peril. Or to be less dramatic: it's your loss. > > Ignoring that there are different aspects means ignoring > what a Lisp function (or symbol or whatever) _is_, which > also means ignoring what it can be used for and how it > can be used. > > In Lisp, in particular, you can treat `(lambda (x) (* x 2))' > as a list, in addition to treating it as a function. It > has different behaviors depending on what you do with it. Bigger people have not managed to get this. Scheme gets this better than CL And CL gets it better than Elisp However in my very most humble opinion even Abelson and Sussman dont get the main point of scheme: Briefly that Apply-Lambda is one axis And Eval-Quote another. Functional languages emphasize the former Non-first-class pre-CL-lisps like Elisp the latter More here http://blog.languager.org/2013/08/applying-si-on-sicp.html