[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lexical closure bug?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: lexical closure bug?
- From: Robert Bruce Findler <robby+@CMU.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 18:50:29 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <9310201955.AA28493@cambridge.apple.com>
> A different implementation of do, which used tail recursion instead of
> tagbody/go and so established a new binding of a for each iteration
> produced the result you expected.
I see. Is do coded that way for a reason? To me, the way that MCL coded
do seems counter-intuitive. I don't generally expect variables to
changed out from under me. Is it much faster to be that way?
Robby Findler firstname.lastname@example.org
Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA (412) 681-4552