Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!know!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: Scheme is unnecessarily biased towards lists Message-ID: Date: 22 Sep 90 15:47:11 GMT References: <9009200822.AA02949@vis.> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 15 In article markf@zurich.ai.mit.edu writes: > As Thomas Breuel corrected me, my example for generic dispatch of > (set! + ... (apply + addends)))) > ought to have been: > (let ((old-+ +)) > (set! + ... (apply old-+ addends))))) Amusing aside... in Forth a new definition is undefined until complete, so you can do a ": + something if ... else + then ;" and have it work... Back to the point, your example needs more work. What if you're adding objects of the old and the new numeric types? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com