On 1/29/07, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But why? Won't this gratuitously break loads of existing code? Or are you saying that you will still retain the existing syntax, and add a new, more recommended one? To me, named let feels natural, an intuitive combination of the ideas of local bindings (the let) and recursion (the name). Argument based on the detailed differences between let and letrec feels over-precise to me, and ends up missing the wood for the trees.
To me, it's all about code readability. The name "let" is suggestive of "let x be 5" and similar mathematical bindings, so it is natural to start variable bindings that way. It has no mnemonic for recursive computation, and most "let" forms in code are not for recursive computation, so named-let forms can be confusing to programmers unfamiliar with them. I support giving the inline recursive computation form of "let" a more descriptive name, that's all. Precisely because it combines "let" with another idea, and I think the form "let" should not be more than its name suggests. -- Carl Eastlund _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
