Re: GOOPS: New syntax for `define-method'?

[Ole Myren Rohne <ole dot rohne at cern dot ch>]

Miroslav Silovic <silovic@zesoi.fer.hr> writes:

> I like the new syntax, too, but there is a caveat: in
> 
> (define (name arg arg...)),
> 
> name is same as the arguments in that it does not have to be a symbol
> (i.e. is evaluated and the result of the evaluation is called). 

Initial idea: 
No way, you cannot use anything but a single symbol for "name"!

Check before screaming:
guile> (define ((test x) y) (* x y))
guile> ((test 3) 4)
12

This seems to happen by recursive macroexpansion:

(define ((test)) 0)
-> (define (test) (lambda () 0))
-> (define test (lambda () (lambda () 0)))

But why would anyone want to do that?

	Regards,        
        Ole