[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: perhaps I've missed something ...



At 5:43 PM -0500 1/20/00, Lars Thomas Hansen wrote:
 >pps. let and letrec are both binding constructs. I don't see why we
 >need two different forms.  Why not just use 'let,' and if any of the
 >right-hand-sides happen to refer to the name they're bound to,
 >implicitly change the whole thing into a letrec?  I think this would
 >be much simpler and avoid lots of confusion.

Personally I think this whole LET business is a wart (and probably
inherited from BASIC, to boot -- good grief!)  We should all be
programming in CPS.

touche.

john clements


...Which is to say, as I have before, that I have nothing against syntactic abstraction per se; however, the introduction of language forms does change the nature of the language, even when those language forms may take the form of local syntactic transformations. It's my opinion that this change (extended set!) secures a minimal savings at the cost of conceptual clarity, and for that reason is not, in sum, a win for the language.