Re: nested define syntax

[Matthias Koeppe]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> currently, guile allows the following:
>
> guile> (define (((foo a b) c) d) #f)
> guile> foo
> #<procedure foo (a b)>
> guile> (procedure-source foo)
> (lambda (a b) (lambda (c) (lambda (d) #f)))
>
> This is non-R5RS conformant, and I wonder if anybody uses this style of
> declaration?  Shouldn't we rather remove it?

This syntax is *not defined* in R5RS.  Guile provides a convenient
*extension* to R5RS here.  Why do you claim that supporting this
extension violates R5RS?

BTW, this technique is called "currying"; I use it extensively in my
code.

-- 
Matthias Köppe -- http://www.math.uni-magdeburg.de/~mkoeppe