Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Oleh writes:
 > > Footnotes:
 > > [1]  ISTM that that goes without saying, given that Lisp having data
 > > and code representations using the same syntax is advertised as an
 > > advantage.
 > 
 > I don't see a problem:

Not everything is a problem.  I understand that "#(fubar indeed!)"
is reader syntax and doesn't affect internal representation of the
lambdas.  That was a comment to David that (as often happens in his
posts) he is taking the literal meaning of metaphorical or elliptical
expressions too seriously.  Metaprogramming is the soul of Lisp, I
know that and he knows that I know that.  We disagree so violently
because we disagree so little. ;-)[1]

Re this sprinkling of bitter herbs: I just don't like the syntax (in
general I'm not a fan of anatropic syntax in Lisp), and don't want to
support use of it in the educational sense of support or in core
maintenance in XEmacs.  I don't expect to convince you, it's a matter
of taste.  My likes and dislikes matter to more than me because I do a
*lot* of support, and the more magic there is in the world the harder
it is to explain to users who believe in magic that under the hood
it's just a lambda.  I think this

(car #(fubAr quux)) => 'lambda

would be *very* surprising to most users.  That kind of computation is
what functions are for.


Footnotes: 
[1]  Not funny, actually, but I'm too old to change and respect David
too much to ask him to change.  I even kinda like him as he is. :-)