Home Original page

Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

Eli Barzilay eli at barzilay.org
Tue Oct 7 18:16:38 EDT 2003 
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 difference differnt syntax?

Huh?


> > (which is an indication of a different mindset, which leads to
> > performance being optimized for a certain style).  Scheme is much more
> > functional in this respect, for example -- using HOF versions of
> > with-... compared to Lisp where these are always macros.)
> 
> in practice, as a rule, a with- is available at least optionally also as a
> call-with-. not just for convenience, but also for maintainability.
> [...]

Yes, but I was talking about the difference approaches,  for example:

  (dolist (x foo)
    (bar x))

vs:

  (mapc #'bar foo)


> i am curious, however, about the HOF equivalents for macros which
> expand primarily to changes to the lexical environment. [...]

That was the point I made in the beginning.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!
More information about the Python-list mailing list