(λ (pred list)
(take 5 (filter pred (drop 3 list))))
And yes, in most schemes, you can use λ as a synonym for lambda. Sometimes you have to define it first, though. Anyways, that looks a lot like the Haskell to you, doesn't it? It doesn't have the laziness, but other than that...
Oh! Oh! I almost forgot! you can also use the thrush combinator, if you use the clojurian package:
And yes, I think this is all the ways you can do this in scheme. CHICKEN specifically. With some various macros packages.
Oh, wait! I forgot we have function composition, too, but you'd have to use lambda or cut constantly to make the thing work because we don't have currying. So these are all the ELEGANT ways to make this in chicken scheme. With the cut SRFI. Or clojurian. And srfi-1, which is basically standard. and it's better than the examples given, because pred and list aren't pre-specified.
It's easier for people propping up one language over another language family to ignore the similarly easy ways to do things in prominent members of that language family. ;)
If anything, this has made me rethink possibly going over to common lisp, which I was thinking of for the larger stdlib, because SBCL is very fast, supports TCO, and you can disable case insensitivity.
Common LISP was made to smooth over the differences of the ancient LISP's plus standardize their situation a bit. If those don't matter to you, then the alternatives are often better. SBCL being one of them. If I get back into LISP, I think the Racket Scheme community looks like it's delivering most bang for buck in terms of what the tools can do after investing time learning them.
Most schemes don't have a lot going for them in terms of libraries, which is the primary reason I'd want to go over to Common. I really don't like racket, for mostly aesthetic reasons. It seems a bit over complicated, trying to stuff a lot of cutting edge research into its core, and forcing you to learn about 6 different models at once just to understand what its documentation is saying. Its OO system is apparently lackluster, especially since most schemes fork tinyCLOS for OO, and syntax-case is too complicated for its benefits.
I'll stick with CHICKEN for now. Its module system may be a bit awkward at times, (you can't cleanly bind all your dependent modules into one executable), but it's much more minimal, and while its documentation may not be the best, at least I can understand what its saying.
(cut take 5 (filter <> (drop 3 <>)))
or, without the cut macro:
(λ (pred list) (take 5 (filter pred (drop 3 list))))
And yes, in most schemes, you can use λ as a synonym for lambda. Sometimes you have to define it first, though. Anyways, that looks a lot like the Haskell to you, doesn't it? It doesn't have the laziness, but other than that...
Oh! Oh! I almost forgot! you can also use the thrush combinator, if you use the clojurian package:
(λ (list pred) (->> list (drop 3) (filter pred) (take 5)))
And yes, I think this is all the ways you can do this in scheme. CHICKEN specifically. With some various macros packages.
Oh, wait! I forgot we have function composition, too, but you'd have to use lambda or cut constantly to make the thing work because we don't have currying. So these are all the ELEGANT ways to make this in chicken scheme. With the cut SRFI. Or clojurian. And srfi-1, which is basically standard. and it's better than the examples given, because pred and list aren't pre-specified.