[plt-scheme] to define, or to let

From: Bradd W. Szonye (bradd+plt at szonye.com)
Date: Sun Mar 21 20:43:06 EST 2004

Paul Schlie wrote:
> However [a type error] represents an example of a program's failure to
> behave as desired within the true breadth of it's range and domain;
> the other is an example of scheme's failure to specify it's semantics
> sufficiently to warrant a program's equivalent behavior differing, yet
> "compliant", environments.

Scheme doesn't fail to specify the semantics of LET. It deliberately
specifies non-sequential semantics. You call it a failure; I call it a

Also, I don't know what you're trying to say in the first clause of your
sentence. A type error is still an example of a program's code failing
to match its design, and it's likely to result in the same kind of
mysterious errors.
Bradd W. Szonye

Posted on the users mailing list.