Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!rice!titan!dorai
From: dorai@titan.rice.edu (Dorai Sitaram)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: FUNCALL question
Message-ID: <4541@brazos.Rice.edu>
Date: 4 Feb 90 23:49:32 GMT
References: <3277@accuvax.nwu.edu> <1990Jan28.175437.19293@hellgate.utah.edu> <1990Jan29.224305.20803@hellgate.utah.edu> <385@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <1654@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: root@rice.edu
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 47

In article <1654@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
$In article <385@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> gat@robotics.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Erann Gat) writes:
$>In article <1990Jan29.224305.20803@hellgate.utah.edu>, sandra%defun.utah.edu@cs.
$>utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore) writes:
$>> Scheme has a FUNCALL operation with exactly the same *semantics* as
$>> that in Common Lisp.  It does, however, have different syntax, which
$>> most people would probably agree is less complicated.
$
$I'm not sure it's fair to say FUNCALL is just syntax, because FUNCALL
$is not restricted to appearing as the car of a function call. FUNCALL
							       ^^^^^^^
$is a function, and Scheme does not have such a function.  Since the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
$original quesiton was "why is FUNCALL a function?", this is a relevant,
$although minor, point.
$
$I think it's true that most people now prefer the Scheme approach; but
$it depends, in part, on what sort of code is involved.  When a lot of
$FUNCALLs are needed, they can make code look cluttered and hard to
$read.  But when they're rare, they can act as a useful sign that
$something unusual is happening.
$
$>Scheme has a FUNCALL only insofar as its semantics for calling functions
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
$>are the same as the semantics of funcall.  Scheme does not have a
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
$>function which does what FUNCALL does.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
$
$I agree (see above).

I saw the above rather by accident, so what I say here might take
something out of context.  Disclaimer done, I don't see how someone
can claim that Scheme doesn't have a _funcall_ function (procedure).
Surely you don't just mean that the language standard doesn't mention
_funcall_?  For _funcall_ is easily retrieved as:

	(define funcall (lambda (f . z) (apply f z)))

So what am I missing?

--dorai
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------