Why have documentation in two places if it seems to be little more than a rehash of existing information, simply link from the core language section to the reference, end of story maybe?
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote: > Hi Jon, > >> "The values are not bound to the variables until execution of the >> prg has begun, so this excludes using v1 to set the value of v2 as >> in this example:" >> >> This must be plain wrong, and that probably explains why the example >> is still missing. This is my counterexample: >> >> : (let (X 3 Y (inc X)) Y) >> -> 4 > > Yes, you are right. In fact, it is an often-used feature that variables > in 'let' rely on previously bound variables. This is consistent with > other situations, e.g. 'set' or 'setq' 'setq', and very useful. > > The other case (binding all variables simultaneously, as is done during > function calls) is much less useful. In 'let' all variables are visible > in that place, so each expression can access the bound results of > previous expressions. For function calls, of course, this is not an > option, as the variables are not locally visible and would create > confusion if they were not bound simultaneously. > > >> This Wiki article really needs to be completed. I'm a bit reluctant >> to touch it, because if I do, I feel I have to make sure the entire > > I was hoping that the original author danelliottster would react, but I > notice that he already unsubstribed from the mailing list. So he seems > to be no longer interested :( > >> article is OK, since my name will show at the bottom for a good >> while. ;-) Maybe it's better to remove this article temporarily ...? > > I would be glad if you'd take over ;-) > > I'll better not do that, as I wrote about my view of the core language > in other places (e.g. the references). > > Cheers, > - Alex > -- > UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe > -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe