Alain Ketterlin wrote:
You must be kidding. Like many others, you seem to think that Scheme is a typical functional language, which it is not.
I never said that Scheme is a functional language -- I'd be the first to acknowledge that it's not. I do know what real functional languages are like. However, Scheme is more relevant to this discussion than Haskell, precisely because it's *not* purely functional -- it does allow existing bindings to be changed. Yet its lambdas are late-binding, and nobody seems to get tripped up by that they way they do in Python. Why not? It's because Scheme encourages a style of programming which favours creation of new bindings rather than changing existing ones, so most of the time the bindings captured by a lambda don't change later. -- Greg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
