Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (09 Jan 2005 22:35 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Robby Findler (09 Jan 2005 22:39 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (09 Jan 2005 22:44 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Robby Findler (09 Jan 2005 22:46 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (09 Jan 2005 22:54 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Robby Findler (10 Jan 2005 00:59 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 01:16 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 01:56 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 02:27 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Robby Findler (10 Jan 2005 02:43 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Bradd W. Szonye (10 Jan 2005 00:05 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 01:02 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Bradd W. Szonye (10 Jan 2005 17:03 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 20:23 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Bradd W. Szonye (10 Jan 2005 20:59 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 21:13 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 22:15 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 22:20 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (10 Jan 2005 23:07 UTC)
Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie (11 Jan 2005 14:20 UTC)

Re: nested comments (please correct lexical scope) Paul Schlie 09 Jan 2005 22:54 UTC

> From: Robby Findler <xxxxxx@cs.uchicago.edu>
>> Please explain? In what circumstance would you actually prefer/require to
>> express:
>>
>> (a #;#; b c) => (a)
>>
>> Vs
>>
>> (a #;b #;c) => (a)
>
> Oh, I don't care about that. It's this one:
>
>   (a
>    #;
>    b)
>
> =>
>
>   (a  b)
>
> that would wreck everything.

Ok, I'm still missing it, as then why prefer/require:

  (
   a
   #;
   b
  )
=> (a)

vs

  (
   a
   #;b
  )
=> (a)