Re: first-class names

[Michael Sperber <address@hidden>]

>>>>> "mike" == mike  <mike@newhall.net> writes:

>>>>>>> "mike" == mike  <mike@newhall.net> writes:
mike> >
mike>     It seems that one way to look at this is to consider " 'foo " to
>> be a
mike> degenerate case of literal code, with the same binding problems.  If
mike> you could store the symbol "foo" along with the environment in
>> effect
mike> at the time you stored it, a la (lambda), wouldn't that allow
mike> optimization and analysis and all that good stuff?
mike> >
>> Sure, that's exactly what LAMBDA does.  Just do
mike> >
>> (let ((foo 23))
>>   (let ((set-foo (lambda (x) (set! foo x))))
>>     ...))
mike> >
>> Cheers =8-} Mike Friede

mike>     I guess the real question is can this be turned into something that
mike> provides some [more] of the benefits of the canonical implementation
mike> of first-class names without all the costs...

What do you mean by "all the costs"?  And what do you mean by
"canonical implementation"?

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla