[albedoa]

For those of us who are unfamiliar with Lisps, can you expand on how they break referential transparency (and how Standard ML contrasts in that regard)?

[epgui]

They don’t.

Or at least not inherently, if by “lisp” one is primarily referring to s-expressions.

[medo-bear]

He is probably talking about namespaces. In common lisp, for example,

   (a a)

calls a function 'a' on a variable 'a'. Lisp knows this because the first thing that comes after the left paren is a function

[convolvatron]

more importantly there are functions (using scheme as an example) like set! and set-cdr! that mutate existing values and totally break referential transparency.

this isn't just user facing - for example let* kind of depends on creating bindings up front so they work across clauses, and then mutating them afterwards

[amake]

Why does `let*` need to have mutation? It can be nested `let`s.

[convolvatron]

let* permits expressions on the right refer to arbitrary other symbols bound by the let*. in particular it allows for construction of recursive lambdas that may not be linearlizable.

[amake]

> let* permits expressions on the right refer to arbitrary other symbols bound by the let*

In what language? I just checked Elisp, SBCL, and Guile, and they all error out if you refer to a variable not previously defined by a left-to-right traversal of the varlist:

    (let* ((a (+ b 1)) (b 1)) a)

Edit: This doesn't work either:

    (let* ((a (lambda () (+ b 1))) (b 1)) (funcall a)) ; (funcall a) -> (a) for Schemes

[amake]

Anyway, as far as I'm seeing it's perfectly possible to implement let* consistent with the above behavior as a macro without mutation as such:

    (define-macro (let* bindings &rest body)
      (if (null? bindings)
        `(progn ,@body)
        `(let (,(car bindings))
           (let* ,(cdr bindings)
             ,@body))))

[tonyg]

You're thinking of letrec.

[amake]

Ah, that does look to be the case. I didn't know about that one.

    Signature
    (letrec BINDERS &rest BODY)
    
    Documentation
    Bind variables according to BINDERS then eval BODY.
    
    The value of the last form in BODY is returned.
    Each element of BINDERS is a list (SYMBOL VALUEFORM) that binds
    SYMBOL to the value of VALUEFORM.
    
    The main difference between this macro and let/let* is that
    all symbols are bound before any of the VALUEFORMs are evalled.

[medo-bear]

Lisp allows you to mutate, you can certainly write non-mutating code in lisp. Why do you think you need to use mutation with let*? let* is just a sequential let

https://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw70/CLHS/Body/s_let...