[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bindings and assignments (was: Re: continuations)
On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 10:53 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
> Vadim Nasardinov wrote:
>> If you don't use the "final" keyword, then the variable can be
>> reassigned (in the set! sense).
>> Does that qualify as a syntactic distinction?
> I'd forgotten about this use of "final" (maybe because I don't find
> the pun quite so evident). Yes, that would qualify as a syntactic
I respectfully disagree. Insofar as the 'final' keyword may also be
applied to an object's member variables to prevent them from being
mutated, I believe that it _increases_ the mental conflation of
bindings and fields.
I am disappointed but not surprised as I read the (PLDI 200) C--
semantics to see that even at an abstract syntax level, Ramsey et. al.
choose to use a single form for set! and set-box!. Of course, this
means that he must have two different reduction rules for the same
abstract syntax form... one if the assignment is to a variable, one if
it's to a memory location. Bleah!