[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] ANN: first draft of R7RS small language available
- To: "Aaron W. Hsu" <arcfide@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] ANN: first draft of R7RS small language available
- From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:29:28 +0900
- Cc: scheme-reports@x
- In-reply-to: <op.vt067uor0p3ku8@localhost>
- References: <BANLkTi=hSfKrHo13BUMP==SNPCX-+As0HQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=kSqWZpF-fAPObreiuAf9FxPb85w@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTik2QF-u=58SLtQDTTWnx6htQxhqXA@mail.gmail.com> <op.vt067uor0p3ku8@localhost>
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@x> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:35:53 -0400, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> wrote:
>> As you say, there is no "=>" bound in (scheme base).
>> So long as it's not bound in the usage context it will
>> thus work with `cond'.
> I forget, has the ramifications of this to the REPL semantics been
> discussed? Some Schemes specifically treat all identifiers as implicitly
> bound at the top-level in the REPL, which makes implicit auxiliary
> keywords fail at the REPL, though they still work inside of libraries.
That's an interesting point, I don't recall it being brought up.
It was my understanding that implementations which do this
only apply it to identifiers that are actually referenced, not just
matched during expansion, and even then it's unclear if the
implicit binding is hygienically any different from the (scheme
Is there actually any implementation for which this could
be a problem?
Scheme-reports mailing list