On Oct 25, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Jon Harper wrote: > :> et [let are different because :> can't be used everywhere.
That's a good point, Jon. Here's another idea: We could reduce [let ] to merely introduce a nested lexical scope, removing the | ... | part and leaving it up to :> to make bindings within the [let ] block. [let ] would still work within a ":" definition as well. So your example could look like this: : toto ( a b -- c ) [let 6 * :> b' b' + ] ; -Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
