home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!news.cs.tut.fi!tut!pk
- From: pk@cs.tut.fi (Kellom{ki Pertti)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
- Subject: Re: Something I don't understand about bindings
- Date: 16 Dec 92 09:41:09
- Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
- Lines: 31
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <PK.92Dec16094109@talitiainen.cs.tut.fi>
- References: <a2vogler.724431792@rzdspc23> <1gl348INNp83@news.aero.org>
- <HANCHE.92Dec15134343@ptolemy.ams.sunysb.edu>
- <1glic3INNq5b@news.aero.org>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: talitiainen.cs.tut.fi
- In-reply-to: doner@Aero.org's message of 15 Dec 1992 21:23:15 GMT
-
- In article <1glic3INNq5b@news.aero.org> doner@Aero.org (John Doner) writes:
- On the other hand, his original define (again according to r4rs) is
- equivalent to
-
- (define timed-prime-test
- (lambda (n)
- (define start-time (runtime))
- (define found-prime? (prime? n))
- .
- .
- .
- ))
-
- Which in turn is equivalent to
-
- (define timed-prime-test
- (lambda (n)
- (letrec ((start-time (runtime))
- ...)
-
- Btw, there is nothing in R4RS that says that an implementation can not
- evaluate the init values of a letrec in left to right order, so the
- original code *could* work with a R4RS conforming Scheme. It is just not
- required to work --- another nasty thing about evaluation order that
- can bite you.
- --
- Pertti Kellom\"aki (TeX format) # These opinions are mine,
- Tampere Univ. of TeXnology # ALL MINE !
- Software Systems Lab # (but go ahead and use them, if you like)
-
-
-