Re: [Scheme-reports] Shadowing imports at toplevel

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Andre van Tonder <andre@x> wrote:
> At the toplevel, can we
>
>  1) shadow an imported binding with a new definition or syntax definition?
>  2) shadow an imported binding with a new import?
>
> and if so, what happens to the semantics of preceding code referring to the
> shadowed bindings in the four cases when the shadowed and the shadowing
> binding are each either a) a variable definition or b) a syntax definition?

Andre, you're bringing up a lot of very good issues, I really
appreciate the input.  I wish you had joined the group initially
so we didn't have to rehash some of the same arguments
twice.

In this case, though, you've posted multiple messages to
the list bringing up various nuances of the same issue - what
happens when you import or define the same identifier multiple
times?  This is intentionally left unspecified in the first draft -
for _all_ variations - and there are already tickets opened
(#112 and #158) to address whether we need to specify this.

The active tickets are in: http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/report/1.
It would help us a lot to sort through the input if you checked
these first before posting a new question.

Thanks!

-- 
Alex

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