Re: Nested &REST parameter vs. single named parameter
- From: "nepheles" <nepheles@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Nov 2005 10:09:31 -0800
Michael J. Forster wrote:
> Hi,
> ...
> In another thread [2], Steven E. Harris suggested that this might be
> just a matter of style, but that he found the choice of idiom
> difficult. In that same thread, Barry Margolin responded:
>
> It's just a convenience feature that allows for terser
> function calls. There's no semantic difference between:
>
> (defun fun1 (&rest args) ...)
> (fun1 ...)
>
> and
>
> (defun fun2 (args) ...)
> (fun2 (list ...))
Except in the case that fun1 destructively modifies args, and is
running in a Lisp implementation that doesn't provide freshly-consed
lists in &rest parameters (Zetalisp springs to mind).
.
- References:
- Nested &REST parameter vs. single named parameter
- From: Michael J. Forster
- Nested &REST parameter vs. single named parameter
- Prev by Date: Re: Nested &REST parameter vs. single named parameter
- Next by Date: Re: Nested &REST parameter vs. single named parameter
- Previous by thread: Re: Nested &REST parameter vs. single named parameter
- Next by thread: Re: crosswords
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
