Re: [q-lang-users] "listof" surprises

[John C. <co...@cc...>]

Albert Graef scripsit:

> Hmm, do you mean that something like \X.(\X.X) X should be an error?

Yes.

> I don't think that this is a very good idea because it renders alpha
> conversion, as it is usually defined, invalid.

Not so much invalid as pointless.

> You might argue that this is just a theoretical issue and we should
> give in to the practical demands of programmers here. But if you
> write a program that takes apart and manipulates lambda expressions
> (as you can do in Q), it's quite tedious if you can't just rename
> bound variables without keeping track of the entire context.

True enough; rebinding is useful for program generators.  I think it's
a bad idea for human programmers, though.

> But IMHO it's much less of a problem in Q (unless you try really hard
> to program in an Algol'ish style in Q), since Q pretty much forces
> you to write lots of little equations without nested scopes.

I agree.

-- 
What is the sound of Perl?  Is it not the       John Cowan
sound of a [Ww]all that people have stopped     co...@cc...
banging their head against?  --Larry            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan