[racket] Nested scope in D vs Racket

Thanks for correcting me
Jos 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: shriram at gmail.com [mailto:shriram at gmail.com] On Behalf 
> Of Shriram Krishnamurthi
> Sent: 21 August 2010 19:01
> To: Jos Koot
> Cc: Matthias Felleisen; users at racket-lang.org; Eduardo Cavazos
> Subject: Re: [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?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >