Re: [Scheme-reports] Module-level BEGIN is not a BEGIN - please call it something else

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Andre van Tonder scripsit:

> It cannot be replaced by the sequence it encloses as in all other
> instances of BEGIN.

Not all BEGINs can be removed in this way: (if (p) (begin (a) (b)) (c))
cannot be rewritten as (if (p) (a) (b) (c)), for example.  BEGIN is
already very overloaded, but the concept is the same.

> In fact, the outer BEGIN is bound (part of the module language) while
> the inner BEGIN is unbound (since the base library is not imported).

In fact, there is no concept of binding in the module language, which is
not Scheme.

> So module-level BEGIN is not a BEGIN.  I think it should be called
> somethig else, e.g. BODY

The WG considered that and rejected it.

-- 
But you, Wormtongue, you have done what you could for your true master.  Some
reward you have earned at least.  Yet Saruman is apt to overlook his bargains.
I should advise you to go quickly and remind him, lest he forget your faithful
service.  --Gandalf             John Cowan <cowan@x>

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