[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Rename named `let'
neil at ossau.uklinux.net
Mon Jan 29 14:17:00 EST 2007
Michael Sperber <sperber at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> "Carl Eastlund" <cce at ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>> For reference, PLT Scheme has a "recur" form (in the "etc.ss" library)
>> for those who do not like named let. Other than the name, it has
>> precisely the same syntax and behavior as named let. There is no need
>> to lose anything in the transition. I don't think anyone is trying to
>> take anything away, just to change names.
But why? Won't this gratuitously break loads of existing code? Or
are you saying that you will still retain the existing syntax, and add
a new, more recommended one?
To me, named let feels natural, an intuitive combination of the ideas
of local bindings (the let) and recursion (the name). Argument based
on the detailed differences between let and letrec feels over-precise
to me, and ends up missing the wood for the trees.
More information about the r6rs-discuss