On Jan 26, Michael Sperber wrote:
>
> Eli Barzilay <eli_at_barzilay.org> writes:
>
> > If you're suggesting:
> >
> > (letrec loop ([x ...]) body ...)
>
> That isn't really my preference, but it would be an improvement.
>
> > then I don't understand how it can work in any intuitive way. Worse,
> > I find it very common to write
> >
> > (define (tree-foo foo tree)
> > (let loop ([tree tree])
> > ...))
> >
> > which breaks if it was using a letrec.
>
> I'm probably being dense. Why would it break? If you think I'm
> suggesting a "named letrec" should expand into something that
> letrec-binds `tree' (rather than just `loop'), then you're wrong.
Then what does `letrec' has to do with any of this? You said you
prefer `letrec' for a name, which I don't understand -- the jump from
a plain `let' to a named one is harmless if you don't use the name in
the body, but IIUC, you suggest that:
(letrec loop ([x x]) x) == (let ([x x]) x)
?? (I must be missing something, because I don't see how *that* can
be considered as an improvement.)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Received on Fri Jan 26 2007 - 05:44:03 UTC