[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Define in let
From: |
David Pirotte |
Subject: |
Re: Define in let |
Date: |
Tue, 20 Aug 2013 18:01:37 -0300 |
Hello,
> It seems following is invalid:
>
> (let ((a 2))
> (define (foo x) (+ a x)))
>
> I prefer to reduce scope of variable as much as possible, so
> I find this restriction unconvinent. Is is part of standard or technical
> limitation? Is it any workaround?
Section '3.4.7 Example 2: A Shared Persistent Variable' is probably what you
want?
Cheers,
David
- Define in let, Dmitry Bogatov, 2013/08/20
- Re: Define in let, Thompson, David, 2013/08/20
- Re: Define in let, Taylan Ulrich B., 2013/08/20
- Re: Define in let, Ian Price, 2013/08/20
- Re: Define in let, Mike Gran, 2013/08/20
- Re: Define in let, John B. Brodie, 2013/08/20
- Re: Define in let,
David Pirotte <=
- Re: Define in let, Panicz Maciej Godek, 2013/08/21
- Re: Define in let, Panicz Maciej Godek, 2013/08/21
- Re: Define in let, Ralf Mattes, 2013/08/21
- Re: Define in let, Panicz Maciej Godek, 2013/08/21
- Re: Define in let, Ralf Mattes, 2013/08/21
- Re: Define in let, Panicz Maciej Godek, 2013/08/21
Re: Define in let, Dmitry Bogatov, 2013/08/21