GNU bug report logs - #41353
'thunk?' documentation is misleading

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 41353 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: lloda <lloda <at> sarc.name>
To: Jan Synacek <jsynacek <at> redhat.com>
Cc: 41353 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#41353: (thunk? (const 1))
Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 17:31:22 +0200

> On 17 May 2020, at 16:46, Jan Synacek <jsynacek <at> redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 4:09 PM David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>> I think this is more a matter of the documentation being not quite right:
>> 
>> -- Scheme Procedure: thunk? obj
>> -- C Function: scm_thunk_p (obj)
>>     Return ‘#t’ if OBJ is a thunk—a procedure that does not accept
>>     arguments.
>> 
>> "if OBJ can serve as a thunk—a procedure called without arguments."
>> 
>> Note that (thunk? (lambda x x)) also returns #t and that ((const 1))
>> returns 1.
> 
> But both (lambda x ...) and (const whatever) are still a procedure that accepts
> an argument, aren't they? My understanding of thunk is (lambda () ...),
> because that's a procedure that takes zero arguments.

(lambda x ...) takes any number of arguments, including none.

Previous Next

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