At Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:25:51 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > Expansions that produce this bad `identifier-binding` result probably > > happen up all the time. They don't bother the bytecode compiler, > > because the compiler uses `free-identifier=?` to compare bindings in > > expanded code, keeping track of all of the bindings that are in the > > environment of a given expression. Depending on your use case, that > > might be the way to go for now. > > If I understand correctly, I should maintain an environment of > lexically-bound identifiers at every point, and if a given identifier > is in that environment, it should be treated as lexical, even if > `identifier-binding` says that it's a module-bound variable. Only if > an identifier isn't currently bound should I treat it as a > module-bound variable. > > Does that sound right? This would be easy enough for me to do.
Yes, that's right. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
