Content deleted Content added
But |
Stan Shebs (talk | contribs) still more cond |
||
Line 72:
:::::I'm sorry, I must not understand what you mean by "minimal" then. If I can implement cond using elements that are already in the language, then I don't need cond, right? I'm almost certain I could define cond in terms of "a mechanism to define functions" (ie. lambda calculus), making it redundant in a minimal Lisp. If you really don't believe me, I'll take the time to actually do this, though I'm not a lambda calculus expert, so it will take some effort. If it's just the concept of "minimal" that we disagree on, then that may be easier to resolve. --[[User:P3d0|P3d0]] 15:15, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
::::::If you dropped any of these functions, a Lisp programmer would say "this isn't Lisp anymore", so "minimal" is the right word. It doesn't matter what lambda calculus is capable of (by that standard, car/cdr/cons aren't necessary either), because this is about Lisp the language as it is normally understood. If you want to write about some other language that looks like Lisp but has fewer primitives, publish an article about it in Dr. Dobbs and then we'll reference it here. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 15:31, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
| |||