>> It seems following is invalid:
>>
>>(let ((a 2))
>> (define (foo x) (+ a x)))
>>
>> I prefer to reduce scope of variable as much as possible, so
>> I find this restriction unconvinent. Is is part of standard or technical
>> limitation? Is it any workaround?
>
> Section '3.4.7 Exampl
2013/8/21 Ralf Mattes
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:17:43PM +0200, Panicz Maciej Godek wrote:
> > You're right, but it only works if you want to export only one symbol
> > from a lexical scope. If you wanted a few procedures accessing
> > a single scope, you'd either need to use the solution with
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:17:43PM +0200, Panicz Maciej Godek wrote:
> You're right, but it only works if you want to export only one symbol
> from a lexical scope. If you wanted a few procedures accessing
> a single scope, you'd either need to use the solution with 'set!',
> or -- as Taylan sugges
2013/8/21 Ralf Mattes
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 08:52:02AM +0200, Panicz Maciej Godek wrote:
> > 2013/8/20 David Pirotte
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > > It seems following is invalid:
> > > >
> > > >(let ((a 2))
> > > > (define (foo x) (+ a x)))
> > > >
> > > > I prefer to reduce scop
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 08:52:02AM +0200, Panicz Maciej Godek wrote:
> 2013/8/20 David Pirotte
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > > It seems following is invalid:
> > >
> > >(let ((a 2))
> > > (define (foo x) (+ a x)))
> > >
> > > I prefer to reduce scope of variable as much as possible, so
> > > I
2013/8/20 David Pirotte
> Hello,
>
> > It seems following is invalid:
> >
> >(let ((a 2))
> > (define (foo x) (+ a x)))
> >
> > I prefer to reduce scope of variable as much as possible, so
> > I find this restriction unconvinent. Is is part of standard or technical
> > limitation? Is
Sorry, the macro definition relies on a few additional functions,
in particular on the (ice-9 match) and (srfi srfi-1) modules and
the following definitions:
(define (split-before criterion list)
(split-at list (or (list-index criterion list)
(length list
(define (equal
Hello,
> It seems following is invalid:
>
>(let ((a 2))
> (define (foo x) (+ a x)))
>
> I prefer to reduce scope of variable as much as possible, so
> I find this restriction unconvinent. Is is part of standard or technical
> limitation? Is it any workaround?
Section '3.4.7 Example
On 08/20/2013 12:39 PM, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> It seems following is invalid:
>
>(let ((a 2))
> (define (foo x) (+ a x)))
>
> I prefer to reduce scope of variable as much as possible, so
> I find this restriction unconvinent. Is is part of standard or technical
> limitation? Is it any
> From: Dmitry Bogatov
> It seems following is invalid:
>
> (let ((a 2))
> (define (foo x) (+ a x)))
>
Perhaps something like
(let* ((a 2)
(foo (lambda (x) (+ a x
(foo
-Mike
Dmitry Bogatov writes:
> It seems following is invalid:
>
>(let ((a 2))
> (define (foo x) (+ a x)))
>
> I prefer to reduce scope of variable as much as possible, so
> I find this restriction unconvinent. Is is part of standard or technical
> limitation? Is it any workaround?
It's not
Dmitry Bogatov writes:
> It seems following is invalid:
>
>(let ((a 2))
> (define (foo x) (+ a x)))
>
> I prefer to reduce scope of variable as much as possible, so
> I find this restriction unconvinent. Is is part of standard or technical
> limitation? Is it any workaround?
>
> Pleas
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
>
> It seems following is invalid:
>
>(let ((a 2))
> (define (foo x) (+ a x)))
>
> I prefer to reduce scope of variable as much as possible, so
> I find this restriction unconvinent. Is is part of standard or technical
> limitati
It seems following is invalid:
(let ((a 2))
(define (foo x) (+ a x)))
I prefer to reduce scope of variable as much as possible, so
I find this restriction unconvinent. Is is part of standard or technical
limitation? Is it any workaround?
Please, keep in CC, I am not subscribed.
--
B
14 matches
Mail list logo
