[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6
On Fri 24 Feb 2012 06:40, John Cowan <cowan@x> writes:
> What I'd like to do is to drop this language altogether and just say (as
> we already do) that it's an error to set an undefined identifier. Then we
> can add a note saying that some implementations extend the standard by
> automatically defining any undefined identifier before setting it.
> This language belongs with `set!`.
If it were only this simple, sure. But this distinction between unbound
and bound affects introduced toplevel macro bindings. If the identifier
is really unbound, the introduced identifier should be given a fresh
name. If not, not.
It's a very ugly corner of the language.
Scheme-reports mailing list