[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.2. binding constructs
- To: scheme-reports@x
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.2. binding constructs
- From: "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@x>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 22:29:37 -0400
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Organization: Indiana University
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20110519171804.GD3745@mercury.ccil.org> <email@example.com>
On Thu, 19 May 2011 17:29:26 -0400, Andy Wingo <wingo@x> wrote:
> 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)))
>> 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.
Filed ticket #187.
Aaron W. Hsu
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.
Scheme-reports mailing list