[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Binding terminology
- To: hilfingr%tully.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU
- Subject: Re: Binding terminology
- From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@ALDERAAN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 87 19:55 EST
- Cc: Common-Lisp@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: <8702060024.AA03116@tully>
OK, I buy that. I now revise my statement as follows. Having gotten
rid of the mechanism for binding variables to values, you have simply
introduced a similar mechanism for binding symbols to variables.
Nothing has been gained. Instead of worrying about the current value of
the variable, now I must worry about the current variable of the symbol.
So while there's no gain in complexity, there's no reduction in
Parallelism makes the same demand no matter which of the two models you
use. Either you have to explain that the value of a variable depends on
what process asks the question, or you have to explain why the variable
of the symbol depends on which process asks the question. There's
still a mapping going on, and it still has to be process-dependent.