Eric S. Raymond discourseth: > Andrew P. Lentvorski <bsder@mail.allcaps.org>: > > > Among other things, because that choice (what old LISP hackers like me > > > call `dynamic scoping') turns out to be far more difficult to model > > > mentally than Python's lexical scoping. > > > > That statement sounds like someone spent a lot of time doing research on > > it. Is there a reference I could go look up? > > It's sort of a folk theorem derived from painful experience. Nobody > has proposed a new LISP dialect with lexical scoping since the mid-1980s. > Scheme and Common LISP, both lexically scoped, pretty much settled the > controversy. http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/steele93evolution.html has some good coverage of this. When it comes to the original topic (the handling of default arguments), I think it's possible to separate time of evaluation and scope of evaluation. Call-time and static-scoping seem like good choices to me. Being able to refer to parameters to the left of the one you're defaulting can be especially handy. E
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4