On 3/28/07, Abdulaziz Ghuloum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: .
Maybe I didn't understand what you were suggesting. Are you proposing any specific canonical semantics of letrec that does not involve side effects but is still useful[*] for Scheme?
No. And I realize this is wimpy, but it is just a suggestion, not a formal proposal. I just think the canonical semantics for LETREC should not require SET! and that a fixed-point operation should be an allowable alternative. This would imply that programs that could observe the difference between these two sorts of implementations would be considered `in error'. I don't *think* this will outlaw too many `useful' programs, but I could be wrong. -- ~jrm _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
