Re: Shorter lambda expressions

[Mateusz Kowalczyk]

On 23/01/14 04:51, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> For a short time I liked 'cut' from SRFI-26, but I soon became
> frustrated by its limitations, most notably not being able to reference
> the arguments out of order or within nested expressions.  I don't like
> the inconsistent style that results when I use 'cut' wherever possible
> and 'lambda' everywhere else.  So I just stopped using it altogether.
> 
> I prefer what Shiro Kawai did in Gauche: ^ is short for lambda, (^x ...)
> is short for (lambda (x) ...), and similarly for all the letters.  ^_ is
> short for lambda with one ignored argument.
> 
>   http://blog.practical-scheme.net/gauche/20100428-shorter-names
> 
> Here's a module that implements that idea, but takes it slightly
> further.  It exports the unary lambda shorthands described above, and
> also a few non-unary ones: ^xy, ^xyz, ^ab, ^abc, ^uv.  It also exports
> variants that use λ instead of ^, for a nicer look if you're willing to
> venture outside of ASCII.
> 
> Finally, it exports the transformer procedure that's bound to all of the
> keywords above.  It's called 'short-lambda'.  Bind it to any keyword
> like this:
> 
>   (define-syntax ^kw short-lambda)
> 
> and now (^kw ...) will expand to (lambda (k w) ...).
> 
> 'short-lambda' splits the keyword into individual characters.  The first
> character (usually ^ or λ) is ignored.  The other characters become the
> variable names.  Underscores are treated specially: they become gensyms.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
>     Mark
> 
> 

Hi,

Any chance for the curried version of these?

-- 
Mateusz K.