Forms like `fluid-let' don't actually make dynamic decisions about *scope* --
they just mutate an existing, statically-scoped variable. We're really just
talking about dynamic decisions about *where a variable is bound*, not *what
the current value of its binding is*. That said, I happen to know
On 2011-04-15, at 21:48, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>Why dynamic scoping was
> attractive and why it turns out to be bad is one of the most important
> lessons from the history of language design.
It's a power tool, and can be misused, but it still has a
On 16.04.2011 2:28, David Herman wrote:
The fact is that "dynamic scope" is used to mean multiple things: 1) the
"stack-like" semantics employed by e.g. the original Lisps, and 2) any non-static scoping
semantics. The former was so famous that it came to be the common usage of the term, but #1
I'd argue that the things that are wrong with "dynamic scope"
in the Lisp sense (usage #1) are just as wrong with "non-static
scope" (usage #2). Dynamic scope in Lisp was anti-modular
because the meaning of a variable could be affected by any
code throughout the arbitrary control flow of the pr
4 matches
Mail list logo
