Neil Jerram <neil_at_ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
> But why? Won't this gratuitously break loads of existing code? Or
> are you saying that you will still retain the existing syntax, and add
> a new, more recommended one?
Thas was one suggestion.
> To me, named let feels natural, an intuitive combination of the ideas
> of local bindings (the let) and recursion (the name). Argument based
> on the detailed differences between let and letrec feels over-precise
> to me, and ends up missing the wood for the trees.
After many years of Scheme, it feels natural to me, too. However, I
always realize what a wart it is when I try to explain it to a Scheme
newbie. I haven't found a way yet that avoids saying "see, it's
really a `letrec' form ...", and things always go downhill from there.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Tue Jan 30 2007 - 01:51:05 UTC