Andre van Tonder scripsit: > I think set! is often a better abstraction for the kind of lightweight > mutation I need. It provides more easily verified static guarantees. For > example, a mutable object can escape from the procedure that creates > it (for example by being returned, perhaps accidentally), whereas > the mutability that comes with set! is strictly confined to the lexical > scope of the binding that introduces the variable.
Interesting. I have never seen that pointed out before, or indeed *any* defense of set! over cells/boxes before. -- They tried to pierce your heart John Cowan with a Morgul-knife that remains in the http://www.ccil.org/~cowan wound. If they had succeeded, you would become a wraith under the domination of the Dark Lord. --Gandalf _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
