Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

However, that approach seems rather backwards compared to having an anonymous function primitive which is used as the basis for the lambda one-line-only sugar, as well as named functions (which simply establish a binding between a name and the anonymous thing).


Why should the programmmer care about whether the underlying function is named or not?


I imagine some kind of analogue to gensym would work there. The name can be throw away and guaranteed unique in scope.

In fact, a lot of SICP examples have you define a function within a function with a name like "iter" for TCO recursion. It'd work like that.

Edit: seems like gyka below confirms that's how it works. I should have read on!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: