Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
What is the rationale behind the design decision to have separate namespaces for values and functions in Common Lisp? What are the arguments for and against it?
Common Lisp is basically a descendant from the original Lisp 1.5, or rather, a unification of its diverging dialects. The original Lisp 1.5 was what is nowadays called a Lisp-2. Because it was back in the sixties and the fact that you could pass functions to other functions was weird enough. No one would even think of letting them share the same namespace. Almost any language invented today with support for higher order functions and anonymous functions chooses the single-namespace approach. Including Clojure, which is otherwise closer to Common Lisp than to Scheme.
Scheme, like Clojure, wasn’t originally a divergent dialect from Lisp 1.5, and for their purposes it makes sense.
Of course, in Clojure, vectors, hash maps, sets and all that can also be applied to arguments, so in a sense a vector in Clojure could be seen as a function that takes a natural number and produces a value from that.