Scott Burson  <FSet.SLB@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| pit...@nhplace.com wrote:
| > Scott Burson <FSet....@gmail.com> wrote:
| > > r...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
| > > ...
| > > FWIW, I'm with Rob here. �For highly functional code,
| > > "LAMBDA" is already too long -- why add two more characters?
| >
| > But the reason #' is allowed in CL is because some of us
| > want to use it.
| 
| Hi Kent,
| Sorry, I must not have read far enough back in the thread.  I never
| meant to be voting to disallow the #' -- only saying that I am among
| those who do not use it.
+---------------

And those who "agreed" with me by citing the length argument
["why add two more characters"] missed *my* point entirely!!

I, like Kent, *want* to use #' when I am *naming* a function --
yes, sometimes even an anonymous LAMBDA, in the case when there
are no free variables [since that feels like a "constant" function
to me]. My point, which the syntax quibbling seems to have missed
entirely, is that when a LAMBDA *is* capturing some free variables
into a closure, which value is then returned, then it feels [to me!]
less like a "name" and more like an "executable form", so I leave
off the #' to emphasize that aspect.

That's just my style of coding[1], and I'm glad I have the freedom to
choose. And I'm glad Kent has the freedom to choose *his* preferred
style, as well. And all you others, too! "All Hail King Mudball!"


-Rob

[1] And of course, I'm speaking here of only production code,
    with the source stored in files. At the REPL, I allow myself
    all manner of ugly shortcuts, including FN as an abbreviation
    for LAMBDA and even the #$ readmacro (with $1, $2... as params)
    discussed here at length before. But I *never* permit those
    in code that others might have to maintain [which includes
    a future *me*!]...

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607