On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <s...@eros-os.org> wrote: > The habit in functional languages has been to use something like "let" as > the top-level binding form. This grants economy of mechanism, but it leads > to a design inconsistency. > > On the one hand, the bindings in a LET should go out of scope when the let > does. If so, it should follow that in the following code: > > let x = 5 > in > ... > > let x = 3 > in > ... > > x is not rebound because it has gone out of scope. Most functional languages > nonetheless diagnose this as a rebinding. > > Does anybody else find this distasteful and confusing?
I don't understand. Is that toplevel code? The toplevels I know don't use "in" for the toplevel version of "let". By "rebinding" you mean shadowing? _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list bitc-dev@coyotos.org http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
