Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
2 points by tokipin 6080 days ago | link | parent

it occurred to me that (fn (. args) ...) would be decent and fairly consistent, though i don't know how currently possible it is


1 point by eds 6080 days ago | link

While superficially (fn (. args) ...) may look decent, it is entirely inconsistent with the Arc reader. Function definitions have to be entirely representable in lists, and the example you list above is not a valid list. Not only would this break the current Arc, but you would have to reimplement the entire reader that Arc currently borrows from Scheme. Not to mention that you would have to define what it even means to have a cons with no 'car field.

-----