Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.2. binding constructs

["Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@x>]

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)))
>>>     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.

Filed ticket #187.

	Aaron W. Hsu


-- 
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.

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