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

Reply via email to