Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Eli Barzilay]

james anderson <james.anderson at setf.de> writes:

> Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > 
> > james anderson <james.anderson at setf.de> writes:
> > 
> > > Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > > >
> > > > (This hits one of the major differences between Lisp and
> > > > Scheme -- in Lisp I'm not as happy to use HOFs because of the
> > > > different syntax
> > >
> > > which different [] syntax?
> > 
> > Huh?
> 
> that is, what is different about the syntax for higher-order
> functions in lisp?

funcall, function, #', the double namespace.


> > Yes, but I was talking about the difference approaches, for
> > example:
> > 
> >   (dolist (x foo)
> >     (bar x))
> > 
> > vs:
> > 
> >   (mapc #'bar foo)
> 
> are these not two examples of coding in common-lisp. how do they
> demonstrate that "scheme is much more functional"?

The first is very popular, the second is hardly known.  R5RS has
`for-each' which is exactly like `mapc', but no `dolist' equivalent.
In Scheme, this is not a problem, in Lisp, the syntax makes me worry
for the extra effort in creating a closure.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!