Eli Barzilay <eli_at_barzilay.org> writes:
> On Jan 26, Michael Sperber wrote:
>>
>> I'm probably being dense. Why would it break?
>
> 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.)
No, I didn't. I said:
>> 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.
... which is not making any positive suggestions. Since still don't
have any idea what you think I suggested, it's hard for me to offer a
precise comment. All I suggested was that the expansion for "named
letrec" be identical to what's currently the expansion for "named
let."
Sure the jump you describe is "harmless", but it's only harmless in
circumstances I've never seen in the wild. Why would you write a
named let if the name doesn't occur in the body?
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Fri Jan 26 2007 - 06:17:02 UTC