Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
1 point by almkglor 6123 days ago | link | parent

Please realize that this makes the following otherwise OK code much more difficult to express using your "God Fn":

  ((afn (m-tree)
    (when (in-sight m-tree)
      (map
        (fn (node)
          (render node)
          (self node))
        m-tree!children)))
    m-tree)
So no. I don't think this puritan attempt at merging ideas is a good one.

"All processes are impermanent ... All processes are afflicted ... All phenomena are not ‘Self’; when this is seen with knowledge, one is freed from the illusion of affliction. This is the pathway to purity."



1 point by tokipin 6123 days ago | link

uh... it would just be a replacement of 'afn' with 'fn', unless i'm missing something [edit]ah, i see the extra fn you lodged in there

what about:

  ((afn (m-tree)
    (when (in-sight m-tree)
      (map
        (afn (node)
          (self node)
          (self node))
        m-tree!children)))
    m-tree)
i wonder how we would refer to the different selves within the inner function without explicitly setting something in the outer one or using rfn. a let around the inner function isn't that bad. in any case, good catch

-----