Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> Andre mentions pedagogical uses like excluding "=>" to make a
>> simplified language, and renaming "else" into other (human)
>> languages.  Are those actual examples of what teachers do in
>> practice?
>
> At least I do -- and I do so extensively.  (In my course I'm using a
> number of languages that are all very different from Scheme.)

I see.

> The only place where it was a problem are the contract and the ffi
> libraries that both provide their own `->' binding.  Of course, one
> way to resolve that is to match `->' symbolically, but that tend to
> break hygine in the usual way, which is why it wasn't done.

So when you need to use both libraries, do you rename one of the
"->"? I guess it's not that big of a problem if this is the only
conflict in your codebase (I imagined the conflicts would be more
widespread).

>> I thought it was more of a bug than a feature; where can local
>> shadowing of "else" or "=>" be useful?
>
> That's probably the case if you think about uses of these that are
> only inside `cond'.  To put this in other words, it's a similar
> question to: "when would shadowing of `cond' be useful?".

The question I meant to ask is "Where can breaking of 'cond' when
'else' is locally shadowed be useful?"; the ability to rebind any
identifier is useful without question.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports