On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 09:35 -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Aaron W. Hsu scripsit: > > > You lose the ability to separately compile modules, so they do not > > replace compilation units like `define-library`, > > Can you update LetSyntaxArcfide into a proposal for WG2 that supplements > rather than replaces `define-library`? I would be glad to consider such > a thing. I will be trying to do such a thing. While I hope to have some time during the summer, now is not it, so I'll try to get to this when I can. > > but they excel at replacing `let-syntax` or for modularizing circularly > > dependent code. > > Please try to keep a grip on the fact that R7RS-small `let-syntax`, like > the R5RS version, is a scope rather than being spliced into the surrounding > scope. See ticket #48 and WG1Ballot2Results. Indeed, I was happy to see this change in R6RS reverted given the experiences implementors had with it. -- Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@x | http://www.sacrideo.us
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports