[fluxus] schemantics

[Dave Griffiths]

>>> out of curiosity, is there some reason for all the anonymous functions in
>>> the importer?
>>
>> you mean the explicit use of lambda in the function definitions? I've just
>> been learning how to write scheme properly lately :) I'm actually totally
>> addicted now.
>
> now your hooked, here is another dose,, . .
>
> anonymous functions [ie. defined using lambdas] dont really give you
much advantage when used in standard function definitions.
>
> (define (foo x) (do-stuff x)) vs. (define foo (lambda (x) (do-stuff x)))

I think using lambda makes it a bit cleaner, but I doubt I'll use that
form when live coding, need to keep the typing minimal... :)

> where they are really useful, is where you return a function based on
the input,
...
> all of which should give you enough of a fix for the moment ;)

yup, I'm considering all these features and how they might be used for
some scheme extensions to fluxus. I've had a go at some of this, but I'm
trying to get a deeper understanding of scheme before I go to far.

fwiw I have some more scheme code uploaded here:
http://cvs.savannah.nongnu.org/viewcvs/livenoisetools/noisepattern/scm/?root=livenoisetools
which is forming a new fluxus based interface for livecoding audio and
visuals at the same time (http://www.pawfal.org/patterncascade/)

cheers,

dave