Hi Andy, On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:12:31 -0700 Andy Coolware <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is my first post here. I am interested in FP in general, Clojure > and Scala in specific. But reaching to roots as Scheme as well from > time. Welcome! > So I git stuck with a question inspired by "Structure and > Interpretation" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Op3QLzMgSY at almost > end of the video @ 1:11:11 . > > So in Scheme we apparently can do such a definition: > >> (define ((A)) 1) > #<void> >> A > #<procedure:A> >> (A) > #<procedure> >> ((A)) > 1 > > For my taste, a lot of happen here besides defining A. Scheme somehow > is able to "figure out" and destruct A from ((A)) in order to make it > possible. Interestingly enough: > > http://schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/r5rs-Z-H-8.html#%_sec_5.2 > does not seem to cover that case. > > So my question is, what really happens here? That's a syntactic sugar for curried definitions: http://wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/Extensions%20to%20the%20standard#curried-definitions Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
