Alex, thanks a lot for your very clarifier reply (specially the procedural
way of thinking which makes a lot of sense to me), I'm still confusing in a
couple of things...

I've read in docs that the ' prefix in a name of formal parameter when
describing a funcion indicates it's a evaluated parameter  (even when the
opposite is clearer to me , using ' to indicate a non-evaluated parameter
following the quote notation you use when want to preserve something from
evaluation) but when describing functions ' is a notation mark with a
semantic, what is the semantic of dot notation mark when used in formal
parameters in function description?

I mean, you have these two notations for functions:

  -  (dbs+ 'num . lst)

  -  (delete 'any 'lst) -> lst

are they applied the same? with the same kind of parameters?

I mean, if I describe the function F as being:

  -  (F 'num lst) -> num

am I saying the same as if I describe it this way?:

  -  (F 'num . lst) -> num

if not, what is the difference?

> and what means the following notation?
> >
> >   -  (dbs . lst)
> This notation is meant to represent a function like
>    (de dbs Lst ..)
> so that a call
>    (dbs a b c d)
> binds (a b c d) to 'Lst'.
>    (dbs a b c d) = (dbs . (a b c d))

So I suppose the notation (dbs+ 'num . lst) refers to a function defined as
(de dbs+ X . Z ...) and thus first parameter is binded to X and also must
evaluate to a number and rest of parameters will be bound to Z, so you call
this function like (dbs+ 4 a b c) ,  what notation will you use to express
you have to pass a list as parameter to a function?  maybe (dbs+ 'lst) ? I
mean a notation to express you *must* call a function using a list like (f
(a b c)) and not (f a b c)

Also taking about dot, as you said you have to use delimiters to separate
symbols and thus you must surround dot with spaces (or any other delimiter
I suppose, probably you can write the weird sentence (a,.,b) as an
alternative to (a . b) dotted pair), so I suppose dot is kind of operator
(maybe a read macro as ' ?) anyway I think it would be interesting if dot
could act as an operator being associative to the right, so you can write:

( a . b . c . d . NIL)

to be equal to

(a . (b . (c . (d . NIL))))

and also equal to  (a b c d)

does it have any sense?

Reply via email to