< :the previous in number
^ :the list in numerical order
> :the next in number
P :the previous (in thread)
N :the next artilce (have the same parent)
|<:the top of this thread
>|:the next thread
^ :the parent (reply-to)
_:the child (an article replying to this)
>:the elder article having the same parent
<:the youger article having the same parent
---:split window and show thread lists
| :split window (vertically) and show thread lists
~ :close the thread frame
.:the index
..:the index of indices
> Still, it's definitely possible to write mostly functional programs
in
> Scheme.
Absolutely. In fact, on one Scheme site it doesn't even say that
Scheme is a functional language, but that Scheme has features that
allow one to program imperatively or functionally, or OOly.
> One of the most memorable things was writing this Scheme macro:
I know exactly what you mean. Sometimes monads make my life difficult
and introduce speed-bumps, but list comprehension and pattern matching
is just so *cool*. I remember when I was doing some reasearch for
parsing arguments, and I saw an example that allowed me to reduce the
entire program execution to *just* the argument parsing segment, by
chaining filters. I'm still a little in awe of that technique; aside
from the chaining voodoo, it made the application much more readable,
and I don't think I'd have thought of it on my own. Then again, I'm
not a functional programmer.
I just wish Haskell was faster.
> Thanks for a nice discussion, Sean.
You're welcome, and thank you too. I definitely learned something in
this thread, which is always good.
--- SER