Sounds like a good thing to add to test suite!
Robby
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Eric Dobson wrote:
> I think I figured out the actual answer which is semantics. If the
> arguments are ever set!ed then my implementation will lead to a different
> value.
>
> (define (f a (b (begin (set! a 2
I think I figured out the actual answer which is semantics. If the
arguments are ever set!ed then my implementation will lead to a different
value.
(define (f a (b (begin (set! a 2) 3)))
a)
This should return 2 if b is not supplied, but in my expansion it would
return what ever was supplied for
At Sun, 24 Feb 2013 09:51:12 -0800, Eric Dobson wrote:
> lambda supports optional arguments, and does this by expanding out into a
> core form that has flag arguments for if each argument is supplied. This is
> tricky to type in TR and so I was investigating why it did it this way. I
> did a micro
Scratch that, didn't look very deeply at your solution.
-Ian
- Original Message -
From: J. Ian Johnson
To: Eric Dobson
Cc: dev
Sent: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:46:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Expansion of optional arguments in lambda
My guess would be code explosion.
My guess would be code explosion.
-Ian
- Original Message -
From: Eric Dobson
To: dev
Sent: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:51:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [racket-dev] Expansion of optional arguments in lambda
lambda supports optional arguments, and does this by expanding out into a
core form that has f
5 matches
Mail list logo
