[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
name that baby
Perhaps we should just go with the similarity of BABY-DOE and COMPOSE.
A multiple-values cognizant version of COMPOSE might be implemented as
(define (compose g f)
(lambda x (baby-doe (lambda () (apply g x)) f)))
(The argument order is the reverse of traditional COMPOSE.) The
result of COMPOSE is a function that accepts as many arguments as
G. The result of COMPOSE calls F on all the values returned by G.
Given this COMPOSE as primitive, we can define BABY-DOE as
(define (baby-doe thunk bunk)
((compose thunk bunk))
Why not make COMPOSE the primitive and flush BABY-DOE? Even with the
extra parens the name is half the length of "CALL-WITH-VALUE." Or if
those extra parens bother you -- how did you get this far? -- then
(define (compose-and-go a b)
((compose a b)))
Or how about this. If we are going to rename VALUES to CONTINUE, then
rename BABY-DOE to CONTINUE-FROM or CONTINUING. Then KMP's example
(continuing (lambda () (continue 1 2)) cons)
But then why stop at two arguments? COMPOSE is usually n-ary.
(define (swap x y) (values y x))
(continuing (lambda () (continue 1 2)) swap cons)
=> (2 . 1)