Re: [Scheme-reports] 5.3 Syntax Definitions

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Andre van Tonder scripsit:

>     An internal (syntax-)definition must not shadow any identifier
>     whose binding (or lack of binding) in surrounding code has already
>     affected the expansion of preceding portions of the body or of the
>     (syntax-)definition itself.

But does that mean the actual expansion, or merely the potential
expansion?  Most R5RS implementations actually expand macros when a
(non-syntax) definition in which they are used appears and assumes that
forms of the form (foo ...), where foo is unknown, are procedure calls
rather than macro invocations.  But SCM and Wraith don't.

-- 
After fixing the Y2K bug in an application:     John Cowan
        WELCOME TO <censored>                   cowan@x
        DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports