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

[Michael Livshin <mlivshin at bigfoot dot com>]

Ole Myren Rohne <ole.rohne@cern.ch> writes:

> 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?

1. this is not standard.  AFAIK only SCM and Guile can do this.

2. it can be handy:

(define ((curry+ a) b) (+ a b))
(define 2+ (curry+ 2))
(2+ 3)
  ==> 5

3. I can't see why the new `define-method' syntax can't be made to
   conform to this extension, except for the need to accomodate
   defining setter methods.  you just can't have everything, I
   guess...

-- 
A CONS is an object which cares.
                -- Bernie Greenberg.