[racket-dev] OT: stump misunderstands Scheme?

From: Shriram Krishnamurthi (sk at cs.brown.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 16 17:28:10 EST 2010

Good point.  I never thought of it this way, but this is another
argument in favor of dynamic scope.  [tongue in cheek]


On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk at cs.brown.edu> wrote:
>> You know, it's not inconceivable such a thing could happen if you had
>> a PURELY syntactic *interpreter*.
>> I remember when I got to Brown, they were using one of those weirdo
>> Scheme interpreters, and had come to conclusions about the semantics
>> of Scheme on the basis of its behavior.  Things like you could run
>> ('(lambda (x) x) 3)
>> and it would evaluate to 3 because of the way the interpreter was structured.
>> Now if Aaron ran one of those to test his code...
> I'm pretty sure that this is also how the original Lisp interpreter
> from McCarthy's paper worked.
> --
> sam th
> samth at ccs.neu.edu

Posted on the dev mailing list.