Re: "procedure" vs. "function"

[Thomas Morley]

2015-04-18 17:47 GMT+02:00 Richard Shann <address@hidden>:
> On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 17:21 +0200, Urs Liska wrote:
>> Am 18.04.2015 um 15:08 schrieb Richard Shann:
>> > On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 13:11 +0200, Urs Liska wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 18. April 2015 12:15:08 MESZ, schrieb Richard Shann
>> >> <address@hidden>:
>> >>> On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 11:51 +0200, Urs Liska wrote:
>> >>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I just stumbled over a terminology issue: are "procedure" and
>> >>> "function"
>> >>>> synonyms in Scheme or do they refer to different things?
>> >>> The Guile reference manual uses the term procedure
>> >>
>> >> So what does it mean when we have
>> >> define-scheme-function
>> >
>> > That is the name of scheme procedure (or macro actually) that the
>> > LilyPond developers chose; I think the Guile manual is consistent in
>> > calling them procedures.
>> >
>>
>> So the choice of these names is actually an inconsistency in LilyPond's
>> terminology?
>
> It would depend on what define-scheme-function does, after all scheme
> has lambda to create procedures. The word "function" would seem to be up
> for grabs for use in naming things to give an idea of what they do (in
> the context of guile) ...
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Hi all,

I'd open the scheme-sandbox distributed with LilyPond and test.

Here some example-results:

guile> (display car)
#<primitive-procedure car>

guile> (display append-map)
#<procedure append-map (f clist1 . rest)>

guile> (display tag)
#<Music function #<procedure #f (parser location tags music)>>

guile> (display define-scheme-function)
#<macro! define-scheme-function>guile>

Cheers,
  Harm