Eli Barzilay wrote: >> Andre mentions pedagogical uses like excluding "=>" to make a >> simplified language, and renaming "else" into other (human) >> languages. Are those actual examples of what teachers do in >> practice? > > At least I do -- and I do so extensively. (In my course I'm using a > number of languages that are all very different from Scheme.)
I see. > The only place where it was a problem are the contract and the ffi > libraries that both provide their own `->' binding. Of course, one > way to resolve that is to match `->' symbolically, but that tend to > break hygine in the usual way, which is why it wasn't done. So when you need to use both libraries, do you rename one of the "->"? I guess it's not that big of a problem if this is the only conflict in your codebase (I imagined the conflicts would be more widespread). >> I thought it was more of a bug than a feature; where can local >> shadowing of "else" or "=>" be useful? > > That's probably the case if you think about uses of these that are > only inside `cond'. To put this in other words, it's a similar > question to: "when would shadowing of `cond' be useful?". The question I meant to ask is "Where can breaking of 'cond' when 'else' is locally shadowed be useful?"; the ability to rebind any identifier is useful without question. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
