Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!shelby!neon!kanamori
From: kanamori@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Atsushi Kanamori)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: (none)
Message-ID: <1990Aug25.163721.26294@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 25 Aug 90 16:37:21 GMT
References: <9008241654.AA11326@dad.MENTOR.COM>
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 15

In article <9008241654.AA11326@dad.MENTOR.COM> plogan@dad.mentor.COM (Patrick Logan) writes:
>Colin Plumb <ogicse!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!colin%array%dciem%utzoo%utgpu> writes:
>    Less obviously,
>    (define (bar x) (cons x 1))
>    is not a function, since ... [confusing use of call/cc and bar]
>
>It is a function. Every element in the domain is mapped to a unique element in
>the codomain. 

For the record, it is not a function. Calling BAR twice with the same 
argument gives you two distinct cons cells that happen to have the same 
contents. You can distinguish the two using eq?, set-car! and set-cdr!.

In fact, BAR is a very good "gensym" function when you don't care
about the type of the gensym'd objects.