>>50
When you finally realize what they are, it's just beautiful. Lambdas are "the meta-relation 'relation'". Everything is a relation in functional programming, and lambdas are the meta-relation.
If you losers wanted to avoid explaining what lambdas are, couldn't you have named them oh I don't know 'meta-function'?
Lambdas are unavoidably meta. Their meta-ness stares you in the face when you know what lambdas are, because meta-ness is ALL they are.
There's nothing ``meta'' about lambdas. They're the same as any other function, except that they don't have a name. That's all a lambda is. Would this guy say that
(lambda (x) (+ x 1)) is a ``meta-function''? Maybe I don't understand what he's trying to say, but it sounds like he's confusing them with higher-order functions or something.