Re: global variables, no lexical address
- From: Jens Axel Søgaard <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:36:13 +0200
Marlene Miller skrev:
On further thought I might be wrong. Maybe the globals variables do have
lexical addresses. Is that right?
Maybe you can use the idea from the appendix of R5RS?
If P is a program in which all variables are defined before being
referenced or assigned, then the meaning of P is
P == ((lambda (I*) P') <undefined> ...)
where I* is the sequence of variables defined in P, P' is the sequence
of expressions obtained by replacing every definition in P by an
assignment, <undefined> is an expression that evaluates to undefined,
and is the semantic function that assigns meaning to expressions.
After this transformation, all global variables are gone.
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
.
- References:
- global variables, no lexical address
- From: Marlene Miller
- Re: global variables, no lexical address
- From: Marlene Miller
- global variables, no lexical address
- Prev by Date: Re: global variables, no lexical address
- Next by Date: Re: tricky list reduction
- Previous by thread: Re: global variables, no lexical address
- Next by thread: Solved I may guess (Re: Problems: Bigloo, UNIX and child processes)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading