On 1/25/07, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar_at_indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> Let me say, as a heavy user of Scheme and named let,
> "NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".
> In this case, the non-uniformity of the syntax is not a wart. It
> is deliciously correct, short and sweet. A "rec" form would not (in
> its usual incarnation) let you put initial values in the parameters,
> which is exactly what makes named let so great. letrec is so ugly when
> used for the same purposes.
> Oh, and named let is not another name for "loop". It's for
> recursion every which way you want it.
> Please, please, do not take named let away from me!
For reference, PLT Scheme has a "recur" form (in the "etc.ss" library)
for those who do not like named let. Other than the name, it has
precisely the same syntax and behavior as named let. There is no need
to lose anything in the transition. I don't think anyone is trying to
take anything away, just to change names.
--
Carl Eastlund
Received on Thu Jan 25 2007 - 16:53:20 UTC