Kenny Tilton wrote:

> > Also, I get tired of always writing backwards. A unix pipe sequence of
> > operations A | B | C is written in the order of execution (do A, send
> > the result to B, then send that to C and output). In Lisp it's
> >
> > (C (B (A foo))). So to do ABC to foo I have to write CBA foo with lots
> > of parentheses. Annoying.
>
> But that is a boring example, because it could just as well be:
>
> (let (temp)
> (setf temp (a foo))
> (setf temp (b temp))
> (c temp))

"just as well" ????

He calls that egregious prolixity "just as well"????

I don't believe that he has an honest bone in his body.

He makes a perfect disciple of CL.

>
> What if A, B and C take multiple inputs? asta la vista pipe, and:

No.

Wrong.

Gauche Scheme:

(use srfi-197)

(chain (div-and-mod 26 9) (lrange _ _) (map square _))
===>
(4 9 16 25 36 49)

(chain (div-and-mod 26 9) (lrange _ _) (map square _)
(apply values _) (+ _ ...))
===>
139

> Or you can do:
>
> (c (b (a foo 'up)
> 'down)) ;; linebreak overkill?
>
> ...and it reads like a book. Besides, i think, read, and design
> top-down, not bottom up, even in COBOL.

A disciple of COBOL makes a perfect disciple of CL.