[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: DO in Scheme

To: Morris Katz <MKATZ@A.ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: DO in Scheme
From: Pavel.pa@Xerox.COM
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 88 15:00:27 PST
Cc: rrrs-authors@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
In-reply-to: <12375254602.54.MKATZ@A.ISI.EDU>

Morris Katz says:
``At the risk of pushing my luck, I would suggest that with the death of DO we
reintroduce named-let to at least optional status.''

Am I confused?  It looks to me that the named version of LET is still in the
language.  In fact, its description directly follows that of DO in R3RS.

	Pavel

References:
- DO in Scheme
  - From: Morris Katz <MKATZ@A.ISI.EDU>

Prev by Date: standardization meeting March 26
Next by Date: Standardization meeting on March 26
Prev by thread: DO in Scheme
Next by thread: DO in Scheme
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread