From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Lisp & SICP
Date: 2000/05/16
Message-ID: <3167424647090146@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 623844020
References: <391E9C25.94F5C377@uniserve.com> <8fo800$cgl$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8fp3t6$b2r$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3167393469185860@naggum.no> <392084bb@news.sentex.net>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 958435905 8612 195.0.192.66 (16 May 2000 00:11:45 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.6
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 May 2000 00:11:45 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* hs@inferno.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer)
| why is omitting funcall silly?  i thought this was taken care of by the
| rule that you can put any expression in the first position of a list

  I happen to think that rule is silly, too.  It has certain merit in
  terms of regularity, but in terms of usability, it offers nothing
  and saves nothing.  On the contrary, using "funcall" as the first
  position in a list where the value is variable, as opposed to a
  relative constant in that context, communicates a _variable_.  Of
  course, I realize that this goes against the grain of Scheme, but
  then again, I don't like Scheme, and this rule is one of the reasons.

#:Erik
-- 
  If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.