Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.2. binding constructs

[Andy Wingo <wingo@x>]

On Thu 19 May 2011 19:18, John Cowan <cowan@x> writes:

>> Perhaps also there should be clarity
>> regarding the validity of the following program:
>> 
>>   (let* ((x 1)
>>          (x (+ x 1)))
>>     x)
>
> It's fairly silly, but not illegal.

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.

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports