Rick: You have the issue backwards. When does the let block END?
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Rick R <[email protected]> wrote: > I rather like > let { binding and binding and binding in EXPR} > > or let binding > binding > binding > in EXPR > > > This leaves no question in the reader's mind about the scope of the > variables. It is explicit that all variables share the same scope, which is > the intent here, isn't it? > > If you want nested levels of scope, then put another let block in the EXPR. > > This is basically Haskell syntax, perhaps I'm already showing by bias. > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Binding forms that introduce inner scopes should be distinct from >> those that merely append definitions to the current scope. I do >> understand that appending actually does introduce a new scope. The >> issue is that in one type of form the scopes end in the same place, >> where in the other they do not. >> >> I'm currently inclined to favor a syntax very similar to OCaml: >> >> let BINDING { and BINDING } in EXPR end >> >> and other forms similarly. >> >> >> Strong objections or alternatives? >> _______________________________________________ >> bitc-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev > > > > -- > We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we > created them. > - A. Einstein > > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev > > _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
