We already have begin-with-definitions. Would there be a great penalty to
simply wrap every body-like sequence of expressions and definitions with
begin-with-definitions? The latter even allows more freedom than (let () def
... expr ...), for it allows (begin-with-definitions def-or-expr ...). I
An hour ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:38:58 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
At Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:15:09 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
I'd love to see an implicit `#%begin', which could have the
above apply in more places automatically. (It was one of the
feature
Three minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:43:03 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
An hour ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:38:58 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
At Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:15:09 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
I'd love to see an implicit `#%begin',
At Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:16:35 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Three minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:43:03 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
An hour ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
At Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:38:58 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
At Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:15:09 -0400, Eli
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
If I get a vote, +1/2 from me.
My vote isn't +1 because I'd rather see a syntactic restriction removed:
make the inside of a `begin' an internal definition context. Then the change
would happen in every similar macro
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Joe Marshall jmarsh...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote:
If I get a vote, +1/2 from me.
My vote isn't +1 because I'd rather see a syntactic restriction removed:
make the inside of a `begin' an
Yesterday, Robby Findler wrote:
Maybe you're saying that people would be confused by that error?
Woudln't that already happen with
(define (foo x) (define x (add1 x)) x)
?
Yes, they would. I just think that overall more newbies fall for the
trap of trying a conditional definition, so
40 minutes ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
I agree about changing `when', `unless', and `cond'.
I can't see changing `begin', especially now that
internal-definition contexts allow a mixture of definitions and
expressions. Unlike changing `when' and `unless', changing `begin'
could change some
I like mixing definitions and expressions -- maybe the bodies of
`cond' etc should also allow it?
The only downside I see is the possible confusion in somthing like
(define (foo x)
(when (even? x) (define x (add1 x)) (printf increment\n))
x)
;; why isn't this working?
but that seems
2010/10/10 Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org:
I like mixing definitions and expressions -- maybe the bodies of
`cond' etc should also allow it?
In
(define (foo x)
(when (even? x) (define x (add1 x)) (printf increment\n))
x)
is the scope of the definition (define x ...) the entire body
On Oct 10, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
I too am in favor of when, unless, and cond being definition contexts.
+1.
I routinely wrap cond/when in let () for just that purpose.
_
For list-related administrative tasks:
11 matches
Mail list logo
