[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Defun inside Let
- To: DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA, DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: Defun inside Let
- From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 12:54 EST
- Cc: gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA
- In-reply-to: <860131123758.6.DLW@CHICOPEE.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 12:37 EST
From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 86 21:03 EST
From: David C. Plummer <DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
That's right, I am bothered by programming environment.
I agree it is
probably not in CL's domain to address these issues, but it shouldn't
prohibit it. Maybe another example?
I believe that all the problems you've been talking about have to do
with the poor interaction between lexical scoping and incremental
programming. These poor interactions are discussed in the paper "The
Art of the Interpreter: Parts Zero, One, and Two" by Guy Steele and
Gerry Sussman. They are not incidental design flaws of Common Lisp;
they are part of the deep nature of lexical scoping. I don't think they
represent a "time bomb" in the language. They just show how lexical
scoping, itself, has problems when it comes to program development, when
used in this way. I don't think any language change is called for. If
anybody writes a textbook or something that makes recommendations about
programming practices and styles, though, they should take these
problems into account.
I hope Steele will correct me if I'm wrong.
Sure, I'll correct you if you're wrong. (I know you'll return the favor.)