Sorry I missed your previous emails these days.
I've recently become aware of several solutions discussed, which have been very
helpful.
I see significant progress reflected in Guile's change notes, and the
guile-define work also contains valuable insights. What I'm hoping to achieve
is the ability to run code like this:
scheme
(define x 1)
(do ((i 0 (+ i 1)))
((= i 2))
(begin
(define x 2)
(display x)
)
)
(display x)
Expected Output: 221
Currently, Guile throws an error for this, whereas Elk Scheme executes it
successfully. (Elk reference: https://sam.zoy.org/elk/)
Thank you again for your responses.
At 2025-07-09 22:36:24, "Linus Björnstam" <linus.inter...@fastmail.se> wrote:
>Just fyi: The latest guile 3.0.10 has definitions in almost all definition
>contexts. If i recall correctly I didnt add it to one of the old looping
>constructs.
>--
> Linus Björnstam
>
>On Sat, 5 Jul 2025, at 20:15, 胡峻豪 wrote:
>> I'm a newcomer to Guile and am currently using Guile to bind some C++
>> functions for users. Users already have many Scheme scripts, but their
>> scripts don't comply with standards—for example, using define in
>> expression contexts, which causes Guile to throw errors. I tried
>> writing a code snippet with Claude to improve this, as shown below
>>
>>
>> (use-modules (ice-9 regex))
>>
>>
>> (define-syntax original-define
>> (identifier-syntax define))
>>
>>
>> ;; Redefine define to avoid recursive calls
>> (define-syntax define
>> (lambda (stx)
>> (syntax-case stx ()
>> ((_ var val)
>> #'(begin
>> (module-define! (current-module) 'var val)
>> var))
>> ((_ (name . args) . body)
>> #'(begin
>> (module-define! (current-module) 'name (lambda args . body))
>> name)))))
>>
>>
>> But this makes the definitions module-level. If I define the same
>> variable at the top level and inside a lambda, they overwrite each
>> other. Scheme is too difficult for me. Is there any way to achieve this
>> functionality without modifying the scripts? I would appreciate your
>> help.
