[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements <clements@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> You believe that an "economy of concepts" may be achieved by merging
> set! and set-car!. I believe that this is fundamentally misleading.
To clarify: I don't think merging set! and set-car! *per se*
leads to "economy of concepts". However, it may be a more economical
way to *organize* the concepts.
Alternatively, one can argue it requires one big new concept
"location" (or lvalue if you prefer) (which is implicit in the
semantics anyway); once you have that concept, it unifies or
simplifies a lot of getter/setter pairs, which leads to fewer concepts
I don't think it makes much difference either way formally.
The question is which style is more natural in practical use
I can see this is largely a matter of taste and personal preference.
And a matter of different cultures.
> If this were the case, then set! could presumably operate on any
> environment, and not simply the current one.
I was trying to make the point that the two forms of set! are
related, not give the semantics of anything.
> I claim that rather than a first-class entity, the environment is
> more or less an implementation detail; the clearest model to use in
> teaching programming is that of algebra, and application by
Except the top-level environment, which R5RS at least suggests (but
does not require) be a first-class entity.