Re: [Scheme-reports] diff between R6RS and the R7RS small language draft

[Eli Barzilay <eli@x>]

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
other definitions.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

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