[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Rename named `let'

Robby Findler robby.findler at gmail.com
Thu Jan 25 16:50:42 EST 2007


I think Mike would be happy merely renaming named let to something
else, not taking it away. Do you really care if it begins with the
letters l-e-t or some other letters (legacy code aside)?

Robby

On 1/25/07, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar at indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> Quoting Michael Sperber <sperber at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>:
> >
> > The fact that the convenient syntax for writing recursive procedures
> > is part of `let' is a long-standing wart in the syntax of Scheme.  It
> > is unintuitive (it expands into `letrec', rather than a simpler form
> > of `let), difficult to explain to newcomers to Scheme, and
> > disconcerting to the casual reader.
> >
>
>     Let me say, as a heavy user of Scheme and named let,
> "NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".
>     In this case, the non-uniformity of the syntax is not a wart.  It
> is deliciously correct, short and sweet.  A "rec" form would not (in
> its usual incarnation) let you put initial values in the parameters,
> which is exactly what makes named let so great.  letrec is so ugly when
> used for the same purposes.
>     Oh, and named let is not another name for "loop".  It's for
> recursion every which way you want it.
>     Please, please, do not take named let away from me!
>
> Thanks for your consideration,
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
> http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
>



More information about the r6rs-discuss mailing list