Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv?

[Peter Kourzanov <peter.kourzanov@x>]

On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 13:43 -0500, Andre van Tonder wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010, Peter Kourzanov wrote:
> 
> > Any pointers to where this is specified? If a re-definition is the
> > same as assignment, then why this yields 1 (in all R5RS implementations
> > I know)
> >
> > (define x 1)
> > (let () (define x 2) x)
> > x
> 
> Because the internal definition creates and then assigns a new location
> whose region is restricted to the body of the LET.
> 

Yes, that's my interpretation too. It just doesn't align well with this
description: "that case turns into an implicit assignment in R5RS (sans
modules)" (of Eli).




_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
r6rs-discuss@x
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss