Thanks for correcting me Jos > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Shriram Krishnamurthi > Sent: 21 August 2010 19:01 > To: Jos Koot > Cc: Matthias Felleisen; [email protected]; Eduardo Cavazos > Subject: Re: [racket] Nested scope in D vs Racket > > 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
