[plt-scheme] Behind the scenes of letrec

Put another way... Local defines are often transformed into a letrec. At least that's my impression.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: John Clements <clements at brinckerhoff.org>

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:42:27 
To:"Marco Morazan" <morazanm at gmail.com>
Cc:pltscheme <plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu>
Subject: Re: [plt-scheme] Behind the scenes of letrec



On Feb 27, 2008, at 6:00 PM, Marco Morazan wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I am considering different alternatives for implementing letrec. As an
> example consider the following:
>
>  (letrec ((a (lambda (b) (* 2 b)))
>           (b (lambda (c) (a c)))
>           (c (lambda (q) (b q))))
>    (c 5))
>
> We can implement it by transforming letrec into let and use  
> assignment:
>
> (let ((a '())
>        (b '())
>        (c '()))
>    (let ((x (lambda (b) (* 2 b)))
>          (y (lambda (c) (a c)))
>          (z (lambda (q) (b q))))
>      (set! a x)
>      (set! b y)
>      (set! c z))
>    (c 5))
>
> I am aware that Dybvig et. al. proposed a more sophisticated
> transformation to let with assignments.
>
> Alternatively, we could transform the letrec into an application
> expression and create a new local function (i.e. within the same scope
> of the letrec expression) such as:
>
> new local function:
>
> (define (new)
>    (define a (lambda (b) (* 2 b)))
>    (define b (lambda (c) (a c)))
>    (define c (lambda (q) (b q)))
>    (c 5))
>
> new application expression:
>
>  (new)
>
>> From a purist's perspective, the latter is attractive given the lack
> of assignment. What are the reasons for preferring the former
> transformation?

How are you planning to implement the local defines?

John


_________________________________________________
  For list-related administrative tasks:
  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme