guile/doc/ref/scheme-binding.texi

@page
@node Binding Constructs
@chapter Definitions and Variable Bindings

@c FIXME::martin: Review me!

Scheme supports the definition of variables in different contexts.
Variables can be defined at the top level, so that they are visible in
the entire program, and variables can be defined locally to procedures
and expressions.  This is important for modularity and data abstraction.

@menu
* Top Level::                   Top level variable definitions.
* Local Bindings::              Local variable bindings.
* Internal Definitions::        Internal definitions.
* Binding Reflection::          Querying variable bindings.
@end menu


@node Top Level
@section Top Level Variable Definitions

@c FIXME::martin: Review me!

@cindex variable definition

On the top level of a program (e.g. when not inside of a procedure
definition or a @code{let}, @code{let*} or @code{letrec} expression), a
definition of the form

@lisp
(define a 1)
@end lisp

@noindent
defines a variable called @var{a} and sets it to the value 1.  When the
variable already was bound with a @code{define} expression, the above
form is completely equivalent to

@lisp
(set! a 1)
@end lisp

@noindent
that means that @code{define} can be used interchangeably with
@code{set!} when at the top level of the REPL or a Scheme source file.
But note that a @code{set!} is not allowed if the variable was not bound
before.

Attention: definitions inside local binding constructs (@pxref{Local
Bindings}) act differently (@pxref{Internal Definitions}).


@node Local Bindings
@section Local Variable Bindings

@c FIXME::martin: Review me!

@cindex local bindings
@cindex local variables

As opposed to definitions at the top level, which are visible in the
whole program (or current module, when Guile modules are used), it is
also possible to define variables which are only visible in a
well-defined part of the program.  Normally, this part of a program
will be a procedure or a subexpression of a procedure.

With the constructs for local binding (@code{let}, @code{let*} and
@code{letrec}), the Scheme language has a block structure like most
other programming languages since the days of @sc{Algol 60}.  Readers
familiar to languages like C or Java should already be used to this
concept, but the family of @code{let} expressions has a few properties
which are well worth knowing.

The first local binding construct is @code{let}.  The other constructs
@code{let*} and @code{letrec} are specialized versions for usage where
using plain @code{let} is a bit inconvenient.

@deffn syntax let bindings body
@var{bindings} has the form

@lisp
((@var{variable1} @var{init1}) @dots{})
@end lisp

that is zero or more two-element lists of a variable and an arbitrary
expression each.  All @var{variable} names must be distinct.

A @code{let} expression is evaluated as follows.

@itemize @bullet
@item
All @var{init} expressions are evaluated.

@item
New storage is allocated for the @var{variables}.

@item
The values of the @var{init} expressions are stored into the variables.

@item
The expressions in @var{body} are evaluated in order, and the value of
the last expression is returned as the value of the @code{let}
expression.

@item
The storage for the @var{variables} is freed.
@end itemize

The @var{init} expressions are not allowed to refer to any of the
@var{variables}.
@end deffn

@deffn syntax let* bindings body
Similar to @code{let}, but the variable bindings are performed
sequentially, that means that all @var{init} expression are allowed to
use the variables defined on their left in the binding list.

A @code{let*} expression can always be expressed with nested @code{let}
expressions.

@lisp
(let* ((a 1) (b a))
   b)
@equiv{}
(let ((a 1))
  (let ((b a))
    b))
@end lisp
@end deffn

@deffn syntax letrec bindings body
Similar to @code{let}, but it is possible to refer to the @var{variable}
from lambda expression created in any of the @var{inits}.  That is,
procedures created in the @var{init} expression can recursively refer to
the defined variables.

@lisp
(letrec ((even?
          (lambda (n)
              (if (zero? n)
                  #t
                  (odd? (- n 1)))))
         (odd?
          (lambda (n)
              (if (zero? n)
                  #f
                  (even? (- n 1))))))
  (even? 88))
@result{}
#t
@end lisp
@end deffn

There is also an alternative form of the @code{let} form, which is used
for expressing iteration.  Because of the use as a looping construct,
this form (the @dfn{named let}) is documented in the section about
iteration (@pxref{while do, Iteration})

@node Internal Definitions
@section Internal definitions

@c FIXME::martin: Review me!

A @code{define} form which appears inside the body of a @code{lambda},
@code{let}, @code{let*}, @code{letrec} or equivalent expression is
called an @dfn{internal definition}.  An internal definition differs
from a top level definition (@pxref{Top Level}), because the definition
is only visible inside the complete body of the enclosing form.  Let us
examine the following example.

@lisp
(let ((frumble "froz"))
   (define banana (lambda () (apple 'peach)))
   (define apple (lambda (x) x))
   (banana))
@result{}
peach
@end lisp

Here the enclosing form is a @code{let}, so the @code{define}s in the
@code{let}-body are internal definitions.  Because the scope of the
internal definitions is the @strong{complete} body of the
@code{let}-expression, the @code{lambda}-expression which gets bound
to the variable @code{banana} may refer to the variable @code{apple},
even thogh it's definition appears lexically @emph{after} the definition
of @code{banana}.  This is because a sequence of internal definition
acts as if it were a @code{letrec} expression.

@lisp
(let ()
  (define a 1)
  (define b 2)
  (+ a b))
@end lisp

@noindent
is equivalent to

@lisp
(let ()
  (letrec ((a 1) (b 2))
    (+ a b)))
@end lisp

Another noteworthy difference to top level definitions is that within
one group of internal definitions all variable names must be distinct.
That means where on the top level a second define for a given variable
acts like a @code{set!}, an exception is thrown for internal definitions
with duplicate bindings.

@c FIXME::martin: The following is required by R5RS, but Guile does not
@c   signal an error.  Document it anyway, saying that Guile is sloppy?

@c  Internal definitions are only allowed at the beginning of the body of an
@c  enclosing expression.  They may not be mixed with other expressions.

@c  @lisp
@c  (let ()
@c    (define a 1)
@c    a
@c    (define b 2)
@c    b)
@c  @end lisp

@node Binding Reflection
@section Querying variable bindings

Guile provides a procedure for checking wehther a symbol is bound in the
top level environment.  If you want to test whether a symbol is locally
bound in expression, you can use the @code{bound?} macro from the module
@code{(ice-9 optargs)}, documented in @ref{Optional Arguments}.

@c NJFIXME explain [env]
@deffn primitive defined? sym [env]
Return @code{#t} if @var{sym} is defined in the top-level environment.
@end deffn


@c Local Variables:
@c TeX-master: "guile.texi"
@c End: