[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] diff between R6RS and the R7RS small language draft
An hour ago, John Cowan wrote:
> Alex Shinn scripsit:
> > > Implementations may (and some will) support the even/odd example,
> > > however. I hope that such an implementation will still be deemed a
> > > compatible Scheme system.
> > Yes, of course. R7RS does not in general explicitly prevent extensions.
> The general principle is fine, but the application in this case is
> not. If a syntax keyword is bound in an outer scope and referenced
> before it is rebound in the current scope, R7RS presumably requires
> that the outer binding be employed.
...which means that macros are not following the same scoping rules as
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Scheme-reports mailing list