I have seen similar (or probably better) defenses of set! over boxes before on c.l.s. I tried to find it but apparently google groups' search function is broken.
Andre On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, John Cowan wrote: > 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
