[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question
From: |
Shawn Rutledge |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:57:56 -0700 |
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:31 PM, John Cowan <address@hidden> wrote:
> Shawn Rutledge scripsit:
>
>> [W]hy should I have to re-create functionality which is one of the
>> most basic features of Scheme (being able to look up symbols and get
>> values bound to them)
>
> Actually, it isn't: Scheme has no such facility. Symbols in Scheme
> have no properties except their print names. (In Chicken and Chez,
> but not in most other Schemes, they also have a p-list which you can
> exploit for the environment I mentioned in my last posting.) It's true
> that Scheme binds *identifiers* to values, but there is no requirement
> that identifiers are represented by symbols, or at all, at run time.
Thanks for the explanation.
- [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Shawn Rutledge, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Peter Bex, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Shawn Rutledge, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Drake Wilson, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Shawn Rutledge, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Drake Wilson, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Shawn Rutledge, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Drake Wilson, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, John Cowan, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question,
Shawn Rutledge <=
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, John Cowan, 2008/10/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Elf, 2008/10/28
Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question, Elf, 2008/10/27