[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1986 17:15 EST
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Why not just a function CONSTFN that takes a value and returns a function
that will return that value?
So far only two such functions have been asked for, one of which
produces a null value and the other of which produces something
non-null: T, for lack of any better thing. Do we really need a
general function to build such things? I don't think so.
Down with generality, and down with the generals!
The issue isn't generality, but minimizing the number of new functions.
"Why take two when one will do?"
- TRUE, FALSE
- From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>