perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 22:21 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Lars Thomas Hansen
(20 Jan 2000 22:38 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(20 Jan 2000 22:52 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Lars Thomas Hansen
(20 Jan 2000 23:02 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 22:58 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Lars Thomas Hansen
(20 Jan 2000 23:05 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 23:12 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(21 Jan 2000 07:38 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ... Lars Thomas Hansen (20 Jan 2000 22:44 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 23:09 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(20 Jan 2000 23:01 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Matthias Felleisen
(20 Jan 2000 23:18 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(20 Jan 2000 23:55 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Matthias Felleisen
(21 Jan 2000 01:04 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(21 Jan 2000 01:49 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Matthias Felleisen
(21 Jan 2000 02:40 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
thi
(21 Jan 2000 09:58 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(21 Jan 2000 18:36 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(22 Jan 2000 10:32 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(23 Jan 2000 20:02 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(23 Jan 2000 20:50 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(23 Jan 2000 21:25 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(24 Jan 2000 07:30 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Michael Livshin
(24 Jan 2000 16:55 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(25 Jan 2000 07:43 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Michael Livshin
(25 Jan 2000 11:02 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(25 Jan 2000 11:31 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Matthias Felleisen
(25 Jan 2000 13:47 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
sperber@xxxxxx
(24 Jan 2000 07:29 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
John Clements
(20 Jan 2000 23:59 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(21 Jan 2000 00:18 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(21 Jan 2000 00:03 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Per Bothner
(21 Jan 2000 00:37 UTC)
|
Re: perhaps I've missed something ...
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(21 Jan 2000 08:39 UTC)
|
>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. --lars