Re: nested define syntax

[Marius Vollmer]

Matthias Koeppe <address@hidden> writes:

> Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > currently, guile allows the following:
> >
> > guile> (define (((foo a b) c) d) #f)
> [...]
> BTW, this technique is called "currying"; I use it extensively in my
> code.

But is the technique closely linked to the syntax?  What we currently
have is certainly very elegant, and for a long time I thought it was
standard Scheme because it felt so much in line with Scheme in
general.  But I could also image that we might want that syntax for
some other extension that is less elegant but more practical.  Common
Lisp has function names that are lists of symbols, for example.  The
setter of FOO is called (SETTER FOO).  That's certainly an elegant
concept as well, and it is extensible.  Just one half of a thought.