[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Lexically vs. Dynamically scoped Lisps.
- To: v.srt@ucla-locus
- Subject: Lexically vs. Dynamically scoped Lisps.
- From: Sanjai Narain <narain@rand-unix>
- Date: Sun ,11 Nov 84 01:48:41 EDT
- Cc: randvax!narain@rand-unix
- Resent-date: Mon, 12 Nov 84 11:28:16 PST
- Resent-from: Scott Turner <srt@UCLA-LOCUS>
- Resent-message-id: <8411122349.AA00844@YALE-BULLDOG.YALE.ARPA>
- Resent-to: t-discussion@YALE.ARPA
Scott: A question has been bothering me for quite sometime and I
wondered if you might be able to help.
I know the distinction betwen lexically and dynamically scoped
Lisps. But what I am still not clear about is what is the
advantage of lexical scoping, if at all. Most people that I have
talked to haven't said much beyond "But if you just look at SCHEME
programs they are so much cleaner" etc. I would be grateful if you
could please illuminate me on this matter, or point me to
references which discuss it. I have gone through the MIT reports
on SCHEME, and they didn't seemed to be much help, though I will
look through them again if you recommend them.
Does anyone care to reply, or send Sanjai pointers to a good discussion of
the issues? I'm a little ignorant myself. Perhaps the T designers should
post a discussion of their design philosophy to this list, allowing those
of us who are distant to understand a bit better the sometimes random seeming
features of T.