Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 127:
::I am a Lisp programmer, so I'll chime in for posterity. Were cond to be removed from the above , there would be no branching construct. Consider the code: <code>(cond ((= x 0) 0) (t (/ 1 x)))</code>. If cond were implemented as you propose, then the code (/ 1 x) would always be evaluated, even if x were 0. cond could be replaced in the above list by either <tt>if</tt>, or both <tt>and</tt> & <tt>or</tt> (which are short-circuit evaluators). But you gotta have a primitive branching branching construct, something that prevents evaluation. Also, note that the foregoing discussion about primitives did take place on comp.lang.lisp a year or so ago. -- [[User:Piquan|Piquan]] 10:27, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
--
I'm considering adding a section listing the arguments put forth by proponents and opponents of Lisp. Would this be useful, or would it probably just spark a flamefest? -- [[User:Piquan|Piquan]] 10:29, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
| |||