Subject: Re: (let) and (let*)
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: 2000/04/11
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Message-ID: <8cuojh$2bp71$>
Daniel C. Wang <> wrote:
| Ahh but my point is that LET is like an unsafe cast/#paragma. You're telling
| the compiler that your program doesn't depend on the order of evaluation.

Like, so *what*, dude?  The Scheme standard doesn't specify
order of evaluation for *any* procedure call... and "let" is
just a macro for a procedure call.

| you get it wrong then your code breaks when you move it to a compiler that
| uses a different order of evaluation. Undefined order of evaluation is just
| a semantic misfeature that encourages bugs. 

Then all of Scheme is a "semantic misfeature"?  [NOT!]


Rob Warnock, 41L-955
Applied Networking
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		Phone: 650-933-1673
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.		PP-ASEL-IA
Mountain View, CA  94043