Hello again, the attached patch also adds a unit test. I am not into how Guile is organized: Is there anything keeping us from adding the change?
Tim.
>From 99d8fb795932eb92b7d5fb09115b6691f4bfe66d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Gesthuizen <tim.gesthui...@yahoo.de> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 18:50:37 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] srfi-11: Do not expose variables to later clauses The current implementation of srfi-11s let-values allows later clauses to access and modify variables bound in earlier clauses when the clause is not a proper list. * module/srfi/srfi-11.scm (let-values): Fix switched variable names. * test-suite/tests/srfi-11.test (let-values): Add test checking that the variable cannot be changed in later clauses. --- module/srfi/srfi-11.scm | 2 +- test-suite/tests/srfi-11.test | 9 ++++++++- 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/module/srfi/srfi-11.scm b/module/srfi/srfi-11.scm index 22bda21a2..7afac9c5f 100644 --- a/module/srfi/srfi-11.scm +++ b/module/srfi/srfi-11.scm @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ (syntax (call-with-values (lambda () exp) (lambda (new-tmp ...) inner)))))) ((vars exp) - (with-syntax ((((new-tmp . new-var) ...) + (with-syntax ((((new-var . new-tmp) ...) (let lp ((vars (syntax vars))) (syntax-case vars () ((id . rest) diff --git a/test-suite/tests/srfi-11.test b/test-suite/tests/srfi-11.test index 40563dc18..9bfaa4300 100644 --- a/test-suite/tests/srfi-11.test +++ b/test-suite/tests/srfi-11.test @@ -74,7 +74,14 @@ '(unbound-variable . ".*") (let-values (((x) (values 1)) ((y) (values (1+ x)))) - #f)))) + #f)) + + (pass-if "first binding with rest invisible to second expr" + (let* ((a 1) + (b (let-values (((a . b) (values 2 3)) + (c (begin (set! a 9) 4))) + (list a b c)))) + (equal? (cons a b) '(9 2 (3) (4))))))) ;; ;; let*-values -- 2.24.0