2 ms·
They are very focused on the stack, which isn't very lispy. I was wondering how difficult it would be to make a common lisp or scheme, but with postfix syntax
by thomastjeffery 9y ago
They are very focused on the stack, which isn't very lispy.
I was wondering how difficult it would be to make a common lisp or scheme, but with postfix syntax instead of prefix.
- kazinator 9y agoWe could start by tinkering with a silly macro: [10]> (defmacro rev (&rest forms) `(progn ,@(mapcar (lambda (form) (if (and (consp form) (rest form)) `(,(car (last form)) ,@(butlast form)) form)) forms))) REV [11]> (rev (1 1 +)) 2 [12]> (rev (3 print) (1 1 +)) 3 2