Hi!
Well, the point of the change is to make it so that things other than
expressions are allowed. I change it to say @var{body}, and then later clarify
that @var{test} is an arbitrary expression and @var{body} is a lambda-like
body.
Which when reading it now sounds... not very good.
Would
Would "is like the body of a lambda" be a better wording?
R7RS section 3.5. says:
(lambda * * )
The * are the stuff you are adding.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2022, at 10:27, Lassi Kortela wrote:
>> Would "is like the body of a lambda" be a better wording?
>
> R7RS section 3.5. says:
>
> (lambda * * )
>
> The * are the stuff you are adding.
Not quite. Guile extends the lambda body (and by extension let-forms) to allow
mixed definitions
Not quite. Guile extends the lambda body (and by extension let-forms) to allow
mixed definitions and expressions:
(lambda ()
(display "Heippa!")
(define routsi #t)
(and (read) routsi))
which expands to, more or less, a letrec*. All in accordance to the paper
fixing letrec(reloaded).
On Fri, 18 Nov 2022, at 11:22, Lassi Kortela wrote:
> R7RS defines the syntax of `let` et.al. as follows (section 3.5):
>
> (let (*) )
>
> Where:
>
> = *
> = *
>
> So their definition of lambda:
>
> (lambda * * )
>
> could be abbreviated:
>
> (lambda )
>
> I haven't read "Fixing letrec" but i
That is a better way to write it indeed. clause-body being equal to a lambda
body.
Thank you.
No problem.
Nb. I made an oversight - the section of R7RS with the grammar I quoted
says:
"These were derived from rules in the grammar given in chapter 7 by
replacing some occurrences of with ,
