[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] diff between R6RS and the R7RS small language draft
- To: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] diff between R6RS and the R7RS small language draft
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:08:18 -0400
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <CAMMPzYNtbM3NwFdqRghV+nPegs-pUe5dYc_J=s7EEQfq0B7K4g@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAMMPzYOV8-5WCbMxQg2aBKo5CE=ePqybWK-rOBkX_eiFStHY7Q@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <CAMMPzYNtbM3NwFdqRghV+nPegs-pUe5dYc_J=s7EEQfq0B7K4g@mail.gmail.com>
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. We can't equivocate on matters of scope.
John Cowan cowan@x
"Mr. Lane, if you ever wish anything that I can do, all you will have
to do will be to send me a telegram asking and it will be done."
"Mr. Hearst, if you ever get a telegram from me asking you to do
anything, you can put the telegram down as a forgery."
Scheme-reports mailing list