L > On 10 Feb 2024, at 13:30, Peter Bex <pe...@more-magic.net> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 12:24:36PM +0000, Pietro Cerutti wrote: >> This is not how I reason about referential transparency. It is a property of >> functions applied to values, not variables. >> The fact that you can define x to different values or even rebind it in the >> scope of a let binding doesn't make (lambda (x) (+ x 1)) less referentially >> transparent. >> If you change the value of a slot of a vector, then the vector has a >> different value than before, even if the same name binds to the value. > > This might be true in an abstract sense, but it isn't true for the > CHICKEN type system. The same vector (e.g. eq? returns #t) is always > the same "value", for purposes of the type system. > > It can have different values inside its slots, which is why we have > to differentiate between pure and clean functions (see my other mail).
Oh, I've missed it! I thought it was just some mismatch on the naming in scrutinizer, I had not noticed the different semantics. Thanks! -- Pietro Cerutti I've pledged to give 10% of income to effective charities and invite you to join me. https://givingwhatwecan.org Sent from a small device - please excuse brevity and typos.
