<strong>Application</strong>: <code>(M N)</code>
</blockquote>
-Some authors reserve the term "term" for just variables and abstracts. We won't participate in that convention; we'll probably just say "term" and "expression" indiscriminately for expressions of any of these three forms.
+Some authors reserve the term "term" for just variables and abstracts. We'll probably just say "term" and "expression" indiscriminately for expressions of any of these three forms.
Examples of expressions:
(x (\x x))
((\x (x x)) (\x (x x)))
-<p>
The lambda calculus has an associated proof theory. For now, we can regard the
proof theory as having just one rule, called the rule of **beta-reduction** or
"beta-contraction". Suppose you have some expression of the form:
It's often said that dynamic systems are distinguished because they are the ones in which **order matters**. However, there are many ways in which order can matter. If we have a trivalent boolean system, for example---easily had in a purely functional calculus---we might choose to give a truth-table like this for "and":
-<pre><code>
-true and true = true
-true and true = true
-true and * = *
-true and false = false
-* and true = *
-* and * = *
-* and false = *
-false and true = false
-false and * = false
-false and false = false
-</code></pre>
+ true and true = true
+ true and * = *
+ true and false = false
+ * and true = *
+ * and * = *
+ * and false = *
+ false and true = false
+ false and * = false
+ false and false = false
And then we'd notice that `* and false` has a different intepretation than `false and *`. (The same phenomenon is already present with the material conditional in bivalent logics; but seeing that a non-symmetric semantics for `and` is available even for functional languages is instructive.)
(let* [(bar (lambda (x) B))] M)
- then wherever `bar` occurs in `M` (and isn't rebound by a more local "let" or "lambda"), it will be interpreted as the function `(lambda (x) B)`.
+ then wherever `bar` occurs in `M` (and isn't rebound by a more local `let` or `lambda`), it will be interpreted as the function `(lambda (x) B)`.
Similarly, in OCaml:
let x = A;;
... rest of the file or interactive session ...
- It's easy to be lulled into thinking this is a kind of imperative construction. *But it's not!* It's really just a shorthand for the compound "let"-expressions we've already been looking at, taking the maximum syntactically permissible scope. (Compare the "dot" convention in the lambda calculus, discussed above.)
-
+ It's easy to be lulled into thinking this is a kind of imperative construction. *But it's not!* It's really just a shorthand for the compound `let`-expressions we've already been looking at, taking the maximum syntactically permissible scope. (Compare the "dot" convention in the lambda calculus, discussed above.)
9. Some shorthand
and there's no more mutation going on there than there is in:
- <pre>
- <code>∀x. (F x or ∀x (not (F x)))</code>
- </pre>
+ <pre><code>∀x. (F x or ∀x (not (F x)))
+ </code></pre>
When a previously-bound variable is rebound in the way we see here, that's called **shadowing**: the outer binding is shadowed during the scope of the inner binding.
(define foo B)
(foo 2)
-don't involve any changes or sequencing in the sense we're trying to identify. As we said, these programs are just syntactic variants of (single) compound syntactic structures involving "let"s and "lambda"s.
+don't involve any changes or sequencing in the sense we're trying to identify. As we said, these programs are just syntactic variants of (single) compound syntactic structures involving `let`s and `lambda`s.
Since Scheme and OCaml also do permit imperatival constructions, they do have syntax for genuine sequencing. In Scheme it looks like this: