On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 01:41:27AM -0400, Michele Simionato wrote: > ;; example: > > > (define sum3 (introspective-lambda (x y z) (+ x y z))) > > (lambda-signature sum3) > (x y z) > > However, I think this is useful enough to have in the core language (we > could even implement a help system!). One would have to store a few > bytes more to keep the signature in memory, but it does not look as a big > deal. > Any thoughts, comments, ideas?
Nifty! I would very much like to see this in chicken. Maybe the syntactic sugar version of the define form could do this automagically? Or make a commandline switch to define if it should be done or not, optionally to save memory. One issue is that of course, the compiled version should have this data removed. I'm not sure if currently all extended procedure data is removed or not. Regards, Peter -- http://www.student.kun.nl/peter.bex -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth
pgp3HOEEEpmUi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
