[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: small Q

Boris Schaefer <boris@uncommon-sense.net> writes:
> "Daniel C. Wang" <danwang+news@cs.princeton.edu> writes:
> | You code "if"
> | (define true (lambda (x y) (x)))
> | (define false (lambda (x y) (y)))
> | (define my-if (lambda (test t f) (test t f)))

> Ok, but then you'd have to:
> 
> (define (my-< a b)
>   (if (< a b) true false))

> But this is probably kind of beside the point, because if the
> primitive comparison operators would return the "correct" true and
> false this wouldn't be needed.

But we're talking (to some degree) about a 'turtles all the way down'
solution, no? in a lambda+application *only* system, you'd use church
numerals and then through the magic of combinators everything falls
out again.

Not that you'd want to write a GUI this way. Check out
	http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore/programs/unlambda

david rush
-- 
As I've gained more experience with Perl it strikes me that it resembles
Lisp in many ways, albeit Lisp as channeled by an awk script on acid.
	-- Tim Moore (on comp.lang.lisp)
Follow-Ups: References: