Hi All, thank you for the replies. it helps to have guidance when learning.
@Meinbg: true. i think programming is mostly (if not all) imperative. the functional programming style (sounds like kung fu) just hides all the 'clutter' underneath. as i understood it, functional programmers have a hard time keeping state, wrapping it all up in functions and all that. @Dexen/Alex: thank you. as to my mention of (de), it was to stress that digging down deeper on how these things work, it will eventually call EVAL() or a C-implemented function/procedure/place-proper-term-here. On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 04:40:08PM +0100, dexen deVries wrote: >> please correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems to me the `de' is not *needed*= >> for creating a function. rather, it's a shorthand of doing the usual thing:= >> assign a (freshly defined) function to a symbol. > > Exactly. > > Any mechanism that sets a symbol's value works (e.g. set, setq, let, > function paramter binding, etc.) > > 'de' and 'def' just have a special behavior in that theyh detect when > the value _changed_, and issue a "redefined" message. > > Cheers, > - Alex > -- > UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe > -- http://nybl.info -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
