This is the mail archive of the guile@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: need SETQ


On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 03:50:18PM -0800, Michael Vanier wrote:
> 
> On a related note, can someone post a macro that binds a value to an
> identifier without requiring that the identifier be define'd first?  I've
> often been puzzled by why scheme requires the programmer to define a
> variable before assigning to it, in contrast to lisp.  Of course, you can
> (and generally do) assign a value when you define the variable, but
> subsequent assigns must use set! instead of define (unless you want to
> redefine the variable each time you use it, which seems inefficient).
> I'm looking for something like set! which first checks to see if the
> variable has been defined.  If not, it defines it and binds the value; if
> so, it just binds the value.  This is especially useful within loops.

I couldn't find a way to write such a macro, because in Scheme there are
restrictions on where you can use `define' which doesn't apply to `set!'.
It doesn't seem posible to use `let' instead of `define', because you have
to close it in the macro.

But generally I don't think it's a good feature to have and use because I
find it very error-prone. Especially in scripting languages like JavaScript
and VBScript (in the latter one can turn it off, though). In PHP3 it's a
little bit better, because one creates a local variable instead of global.

> 
> This is also relevant to translators for other scripting languages, since I
> know of none that don't allow the user to assign a variable to a new value
> with the same syntax as for the initial binding of a variable to a value.

When you write a translator, you can check at translate time if this
variable is defined or not and use the appropriate construction.

> 
> I'd be interested in hearing the philosophy behind the scheme choice.  I
> have no religious bias on the issue :-)
> 
> Mike
> 
> P.S. Looking at the macros that were posted for the set! that returns a
> value, I have to say that the define-syntax macros are exceptionally
> elegant and easy to read.  I wish this style of macros were used more
> widely.

Me too. Though the LISP style macros are more powerful.

> 

-- 
Ivan Toshkov

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]