GNU bug report logs - #40968
28.0.50; (apply nil)

Previous Next

Full log

Message #59 received at 40968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>, Pip Cet <pipcet <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 40968 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#40968: 28.0.50; (apply nil)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 11:00:30 -0700 (PDT)

> > (apply FUNCTION ARGUMENT &rest ARGUMENTS), I guess. I missed it in
> > the first patch.
> 
> FWIW, I still think we should avoid changing the function signature if
> at all possible.
> 
> apply is fundamental to Lisp, and has been defined like this for a
> long time.  See the definition of "The Universal S-Function apply" in
> John McCarthy's paper: [1]
> 
>     apply[f;args] =eval[cons[f;appq[args]];NIL],
> 
> Also note that it is still defined like this elsewhere:
> 
> Scheme: (apply function argument-list)
> Common Lisp: apply function &rest args+ => result*
> Clojure: (apply f args)

Hm.  CLTL2 shows the signature for Common Lisp as this:

 apply function arg &rest more-args
                ^^^

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/cltl/clm/node81.html

On the other hand the CL HyperSpec agrees with you:

 apply function &rest args+ => result*

http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_apply.htm

Dunno what the truth is.  I've always considered
CLTL the language spec.  But that may be wrong.

What's the use case for (apply FUN)?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.