[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Shorter lambda expressions
From: |
Eli Barzilay |
Subject: |
Re: Shorter lambda expressions |
Date: |
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:28:17 -0500 |
> One related thing I sometimes lack is:
>=20
> (define-syntax-rule (thunk exp ...)
> (lambda () exp ...))
>=20
> (Found in Racket, notably.)
IMO, it's much more useful to have `λ', together with an Emacs hack
that makes it easy to type. In the last few years I even switched to
omitting the space in some simple cases, so I use
(λ() (blah)
(blah)
(blah))
which is even shorter than `thunk'. Also, there's no confusion
between `thunk' and `thunk*' (accepts any number of arguments) which
some people prefer.
(Not on the list; feel free to forward...)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
- Re: Shorter lambda expressions,
Eli Barzilay <=