Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cca!mirror!rayssd!raybed2!linus!mbunix!marsh From: marsh@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Ralph J. Marshall) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Functions vs. Procedures in Lisp Summary: *DOES NOT COMPUTE* Message-ID: <34296@linus.UUCP> Date: 14 Jun 88 11:37:20 GMT References: <499@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk> <1350016@otter.hple.hp.com> Sender: news@linus.UUCP Reply-To: marsh@mbunix (Ralph Marshall) Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Mass. Lines: 104 In article <1350016@otter.hple.hp.com> psa@otter.hple.hp.com (Patrick Arnold) writes: >(function? I don't believe lisp has functions) > >Just because the black box notion of a procedure didn't originate in Lisp >doesn't mean we shouldn't allow Lisps to incorporate these VERY IMPORTANT >SOFTWARE ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES. Indeed I think tha case for using Lisp >(actually I prefer pop) for serious software engineering becomes much >stronger if we do (how many other languages have real first class >procedures? Pascal definitely no, Modula2, Ada, C). > > Patrick. What is this all about ??? Why don't you think Lisp has functions, and what do you mean by first-class procedures ? I'm willing to believe that "first-class procedure" means something special about which I am ignorant, but where I come from a "function" is a subroutine call that returns a value to the caller (possibly without any global side-effects, depending on how you interpret the term.) I think that this is the _MAIN_ type of subroutine call in LISP, since you have to go out of your way to return nothing, and global variables have to be declared or the compiler gets all uptight. If you have some definitions for these terms that back up your assertions above, I'd love to hear them, and see some references. (BTW, I think the Common Lisp approach to lexical scoping by default is a much more practical idea, especially since the compiler and interpreter actually have to work the same way (what a concept !)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Marshall (marsh@mitre-bedford.arpa) Disclaimer: Often wrong but never in doubt... All of these concepts are mine, so don't gripe to my employer if you don't like them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Summary: Procedures vs. Functions Expires: References: <499@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk> <1350016@otter.hple.hp.com> Sender: Reply-To: marsh@mbunix (Ralph Marshall) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Mass. Keywords: [line counter food] [soup] [salad] [entree] [dessert] [cognac] [bill] [doof retnuoc enil] In article <1350016@otter.hple.hp.com> psa@otter.hple.hp.com (Patrick Arnold) writes: >(function? I don't believe lisp has functions) > >Just because the black box notion of a procedure didn't originate in Lisp >doesn't mean we shouldn't allow Lisps to incorporate these VERY IMPORTANT >SOFTWARE ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES. Indeed I think tha case for using Lisp >(actually I prefer pop) for serious software engineering becomes much >stronger if we do (how many other languages have real first class >procedures? Pascal definitely no, Modula2, Ada, C). > > Patrick. What is this all about ??? Why don't you think Lisp has functions, and what do you mean by first-class procedures ? I'm willing to believe that "first-class procedure" means something special about which I am ignorant, but where I come from a "function" is a subroutine call that returns a value to the caller (possibly without any global side-effects, depending on how you interpret the term.) I think that this is the _MAIN_ type of subroutine call in LISP, since you have to go out of your way to return nothing, and global variables have to be declared or the compiler gets all uptight. If you have some definitions for these terms that back up your assertions above, I'd love to hear them, and see some references. (BTW, I think the Common Lisp approach to lexical scoping by default is a much more practical idea, especially since the compiler and interpreter actually have to work the same way (what a concept !)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Marshall (marsh@mitre-bedford.arpa) Disclaimer: Often wrong but never in doubt... All of these concepts are mine, so don't gripe to my employer if you don't like them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Other Lisps for the Mac (was: What's the value of lexical scoping?) Summary: Expires: References: <499@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk> <1350016@otter.hple.hp.com> Sender: Reply-To: marsh@mbunix (Ralph Marshall) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Mass. Keywords: