[r6rs-discuss] A suggestion about LETREC

From: Abdulaziz Ghuloum <aghuloum>
Date: Wed Mar 28 18:16:21 2007

On Mar 28, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Joe Marshall wrote:

> Thanks for reminding me of that. But as I understand the paper,
> it treats the SET! version as the canonical semantics and shows
> that the fixed-point version can implement it in certain situations.

Right.

> This is slightly different from what I was suggesting.

Maybe I didn't understand what you were suggesting. Are you
proposing any specific canonical semantics of letrec that does
not involve side effects but is still useful[*] for Scheme?

Aziz,,,

[*] as in: it better not require lazy evaluation or infinite
expansion.
Received on Wed Mar 28 2007 - 18:15:38 UTC