Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!oz From: oz@ursa.ccs.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: Named constants in Scheme Message-ID: Date: 22 May 91 22:28:40 GMT References: <1991May15.172635.18635@Think.COM> <1991May18.203022.9325@snitor.uucp> Sender: news@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca (USENET News System) Organization: York U. Communications Research & Development Lines: 20 In-Reply-To: jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu's message of 21 May 91 23: 17:08 GMT jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Guillermo J. Rozas) writes: Some of us in the community, and in the reports authors group, do not like having different classes of variables. We believe that all variables are created equal, and thus all of them are inherently mutable. Are you talking about theory or practice? Why is it acceptable, for example, to have language extensions like (define-integrable blah foo) or (declare (usual-integrations)) and *not* acceptable to have something like (constant foo whatever) ?? We know all variables are created equal, but it seems some variables and implementations are more equal then others. ;-) oz --- In seeking the unattainable, simplicity | Internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca only gets in the way. -- Alan J. Perlis | Uucp: utai/utzoo!yunexus!oz