Jos, we are talking about *static* nested definitions.
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Jos Koot <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't consider this a flaw in the language. How are we going to write a > recursive function when not allowing > (define (x arg) expr-possibly-calling-x-recursively)? > Not by a Y-combinator I hope. > > I think the following is not too difficult to explain to beginning > programmers. > > In (define (x arg) ...) x is masked in ... > In (let ((x ...)) body) x is NOT masked in ... > In (letrec ((x ...)) body) x is masked in ... > > Jos > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthias Felleisen >> Sent: 21 August 2010 17:43 >> To: Shriram Krishnamurthi >> Cc: [email protected]; Eduardo Cavazos >> Subject: Re: [racket] Nested scope in D vs Racket >> >> >> Okay, that's the one thing why I dislike local and internal define. >> But should we really throw out the idea of nested x defs for >> this one flaw? >> >> > > > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
