<< Previous exercise (4.13)
| Index |
Next exercise (4.15) >>
;; Parse error: Spurious closing paren found
Eva's map can work, because he implemented it. But when installing map in the eval as a primitive procedure, there is something wrong. for example:
when eval expression '(map + (1 2) (3 4)), primitive procedure + is interpreted as '(application + env), so the expression is (apply map (list 'application + env) (list 1 2) (list 3 4))), it doesn't work.
I get the following error with Louis's approach:
application: not a procedure;
expected a procedure that can be applied to arguments
given: #0=(mcons 'procedure (mcons (mcons 'x '()) (mcons (mcons (mcons
'* (mcons 'x (mcons 'x (mcons 'x '())))) '()) (mcons (mcons (mcons
'*frame* (mcons (mcons 'cube #0#) (mcons (mcons 'false #f) (mcons
(mcons 'true #t) (mcons (mcons 'map #<procedure:mm...
I believe the problem is that Louis is 'crossing the streams'. He is
passing one of 'our' procedures to a primitive procedure.
We have a procedure, cube, that is designed to be applied in the
implementation that we are constructing. But here we are passing cube (i.e.
the procedure object referenced by the symbol 'cube) to the underlying map.
So it will be the underlying implementation (e.g. Racket, Guile, Chicken,
...) that will apply map and, in turn, attempt to apply our cube procedure.
This cannot work if our implementation of procedures, environments, etcetera
is different from the ones used by the underlying implementation.
(If key parts of the underlying implementation were identical to our
implementation I can imagine that it might work, but clearly we should never
rely on that.)