Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Pascal Bourguignon]

Edi Weitz <edi at agharta.de> writes:

> [Followup-To ignored because I don't read comp.lang.python]
> 
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:13:54 GMT, Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it> wrote:
> 
> > I think it's about a single namespace (Scheme, Python, Haskell, ...)
> > vs CLisp's dual namespaces.  People get used pretty fast to having
> > every object (whether callable or not) "first-class" --
> > e.g. sendable as an argument without any need for stropping or the
> > like.  To you, HOFs may feel like special cases needing special
> > syntax that toots horns and rings bells; to people used to passing
> > functions as arguments as a way of living, that's as syntactically
> > obtrusive as, say, O'CAML's mandate that you use +. and not plain +
> > when summing floats rather than ints
> 
> In Common Lisp (not "CLisp", that's an implementation) functions /are/
> first-class and sendable as an argument "without any need for
> stropping or the like." What exactly are you talking about?

Read him.  

He's  talking  about  NAMESPACES.  "namespace"  occurs  twice  in  his
paragraph, while  "function" occurs only once, that  should have given
you a hint.

Namely, he's saying that people used to write: (mapcar cadr '((a 1) (b 2)))
don't like having to write: (mapcar #'cadr '((a 1) (b 2))) in Common-Lisp.
[ Personnaly, I rather write it as: (mapcar (function cadr) '((a 1) (b 2))) 
The less read macro the better I feel.]


-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com/
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.