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
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
2 matches
Mail list logo
