Re: Function vectors: +funvec-20030516-0-c.patch

[Stefan Monnier]

>> >   (2) `rcurry' (reverse-currying) function added
>> I'd rather not add such a thing.  Unless you have some concrete
>> justification for it.  It's a very unusal operation in my experience.
> I was mainly following the example of dylan, which provides both operators.
> The added implementation complexity is pretty negligible.

It adds yet-anoter-form-of-function.  I.e. it makes function calls yet
a tiny bit slower, forces placed that look inside functions (like
describe-function) to deal with yet-another-case, ...

> In the distant past when I was using dylan I do recall using rcurry, for
> what it's worth.

But we can provide such a rarely used operator on top of other primitives
just fine.  It only deserves the fast implementation you suggest if its
performance is worth it.
>From what I can tell, rcurry will simply never be used.


        Stefan