Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!sytex!smcl
From: smcl@sytex.com (Scott McLoughlin)
Subject: Re: R4RS, section 6.5.5, round
Message-ID: <TeB3Tc1w165w@sytex.com>
Sender: bbs@sytex.com
Organization: Sytex Access Ltd.
References: <VANMEULE.94Oct8164647@netcom12.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 02:57:40 GMT
Lines: 26

vanmeule@netcom12.netcom.com (Andre van Meulebrouck) writes:

> smcl@sytex.com (Scott McLoughlin) writes:
> >
> >nweaver@madrone.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Nicholas C. Weaver) writes:
> >
> >> <smcl@sytex.com> wrote:
> >> }it compiles a "Stupid Lisp", not necessarily a that it is a 
> >> }"Stupid Compiler". It's sort of a "Lisp Meets the Dragon Book" project -
> >> }much fun.
> >> 
> Would your lambda sequence, or not (I'm just curious if it's easier to
> provide automatic sequencing in lambdas or not).
> 
> I.e., would the body of your lambda sequence as if there was an
> implicit begin in them?

Howdy,
        Yea, lambda's sequence. Never really thought about it. Guess
I could macroexpand begin's to ((lambda ()...)) and thus "simplify"
the thing even more.  Might confuse non Lisp/Schemer's though.

=============================================
Scott McLoughlin
Conscious Computing
=============================================
