Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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?
Thas was one suggestion. > 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. After many years of Scheme, it feels natural to me, too. However, I always realize what a wart it is when I try to explain it to a Scheme newbie. I haven't found a way yet that avoids saying "see, it's really a `letrec' form ...", and things always go downhill from there. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
