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)
|
Matthias Felleisen <xxxxxx@cs.rice.edu> writes: > I am sorry to see that there is such a huge misunderstanding in our own > community. Here we go again. Do they teach condescending at Rice? > 1. Levels of programmers aside, set! and set-field-of-something! are two > different concepts: Could you save pointing out the obvious to your beginning students, instead of to someone who has been in the programming-languages field as long as you have or longer? > The idea of reifying the environment and introducing an invalid modifier > on it doesn't change this. It only emphasizes it. At least for top-level environments, the two forms are equivalent. > If it weren't for set!, Scheme would be a perfect data-oriented language > on top of mathematics (and thus mathematical reasoning). And pray how is set! different from set-field-of-something! in this respect? -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/~per/