[racket] Nested scope in D vs Racket

Jos, we are talking about *static* nested definitions.

On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Jos Koot <jos.koot at telefonica.net> wrote:
> I don't consider this a flaw in the language. How are we going to write a
> recursive function when not allowing
> (define (x arg) expr-possibly-calling-x-recursively)?
> Not by a Y-combinator I hope.
>
> I think the following is not too difficult to explain to beginning
> programmers.
>
> In (define (x arg) ...) x is masked in ...
> In (let ((x ...)) body) x is NOT masked in ...
> In (letrec ((x ...)) body) x is masked in ...
>
> Jos
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: users-bounces at racket-lang.org
>> [mailto:users-bounces at racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Felleisen
>> Sent: 21 August 2010 17:43
>> To: Shriram Krishnamurthi
>> Cc: users at racket-lang.org; Eduardo Cavazos
>> Subject: Re: [racket] Nested scope in D vs Racket
>>
>>
>> Okay, that's the one thing why I dislike local and internal define.
>> But should we really throw out the idea of nested x defs for
>> this one flaw?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>