[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.2. binding constructs
- To: Andy Wingo <wingo@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.2. binding constructs
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 16:21:50 -0400
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20110519171804.GD3745@mercury.ccil.org> <email@example.com>
Andy Wingo scripsit:
> Right, but the language for `let' says that all identifiers should be
> distinct, and the language for `let*' simply says that it's like `let'
> but in-order. Not a major point, and it could go unmentioned, but it is
> ambiguous language.
Exceptio probat regulam. See my .sig:
John Cowan cowan@x http://ccil.org/~cowan
"The exception proves the rule." Dimbulbs think: "Your counterexample proves
my theory." Latin students think "'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts
the rule to the proof." But legal historians know it means "Evidence for an
exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from."
Scheme-reports mailing list