Closed ownwaterloo closed 8 years ago
Good catch. Since it is possible to do (mysub f | x (...))
(similar to how define
works in Scheme), it is not only for anonymous subs.
Creating a function/subroutine and giving it a name have always been orthogonal operations in the Lisp tradition and I think this is the right thing. The equivalent of your Clojure example would be (with f | x (...) f)
, which certainly is a candidate for a macro.
The original statement could lead to (at least) two interpretations:
I think the latter is correct and the word "anonymous" in that statement is confusing. It's better to remove it. That's my point.
About (fn f [x] ...)
in Clojure, I'm not saying "bone or other lisps should support this" or something like that. I just need it to explain the opposite of anonymous subroutines.
clicked on the wrong button.
Yes, you're right, I'm going to remove it. Thanks. :)
The doc says:
Are there non-anonymous(or named) subs(like
(fn f [x] ...)
in Clojure) in bone? It can't be done by lambda or subs shortcut right? If it is the case, is it better to remove the word "anonymous" in the doc?