Good point. I never thought of it this way, but this is another
argument in favor of dynamic scope. [tongue in cheek]
Shriram
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu>
> wrote:
>> You know, it's not inconceivable such a thing could happen if you had
>> a PURELY syntactic *interpreter*.
>>
>> I remember when I got to Brown, they were using one of those weirdo
>> Scheme interpreters, and had come to conclusions about the semantics
>> of Scheme on the basis of its behavior. Things like you could run
>>
>> ('(lambda (x) x) 3)
>>
>> and it would evaluate to 3 because of the way the interpreter was structured.
>>
>> Now if Aaron ran one of those to test his code...
>
> I'm pretty sure that this is also how the original Lisp interpreter
> from McCarthy's paper worked.
> --
> sam th
> sa...@ccs.neu.edu
>
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
