|
The most general form of let/let*
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(15 Nov 2022 12:30 UTC)
|
|
Re: The most general form of let/let*
Lassi Kortela
(15 Nov 2022 20:11 UTC)
|
|
Re: The most general form of let/let*
Lassi Kortela
(15 Nov 2022 20:23 UTC)
|
|
Re: The most general form of let/let*
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(15 Nov 2022 20:28 UTC)
|
|
Re: The most general form of let/let*
John Cowan
(15 Nov 2022 20:38 UTC)
|
|
Re: The most general form of let/let*
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(15 Nov 2022 20:48 UTC)
|
|
Re: The most general form of let/let*
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(15 Nov 2022 20:35 UTC)
|
|
Re: The most general form of let/let*
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(15 Nov 2022 20:43 UTC)
|
|
Re: The most general form of let/let* Lassi Kortela (16 Nov 2022 08:19 UTC)
|
|
Re: The most general form of let/let*
Jeremy Steward
(17 Nov 2022 01:53 UTC)
|
|
Re: The most general form of let/let*
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(17 Nov 2022 07:49 UTC)
|
|
Re: The most general form of let/let*
Jeremy Steward
(17 Nov 2022 02:11 UTC)
|
|
Re: The most general form of let/let*
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(17 Nov 2022 07:55 UTC)
|
|
Re: The most general form of let/let*
Lassi Kortela
(17 Nov 2022 08:01 UTC)
|
> Personally I’d have three forms: let (which would be what we currently call letrec*), Or (let (name value) body ...) to bind one variable, and let* to bind zero or more variables. > The explosion of near-identical let forms, and the need to nest them sometimes, is a wart, but adding more just creates an xkcd 927 situation. Exactly.
