Re: [racket-users] let-immutable

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 11:10 AM, Milo Turner wrote: > > It is fairly easy to create a let-immutable form yourself One thing to add to this. If you care about absolute safety, this isn't good enough because you can break it with a three-line my-set! macro: (define-simple-macro (my-set! x e) #:

Re: [racket-users] let-immutable

At Sun, 5 Nov 2017 10:15:13 +, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote: > Would it make sense to have a `let-immutable` form that was just like > `let` but that forbade use of `set!` with introduced variables? > > I'm thinking it could be handy for authors of libraries that introduce a > lot of bindings in D

[racket-users] let-immutable

Would it make sense to have a `let-immutable` form that was just like `let` but that forbade use of `set!` with introduced variables? I'm thinking it could be handy for authors of libraries that introduce a lot of bindings in DSLs where mutability has to be strictly controlled. I think it is prob