> I already said I don't think it's 100% correct, but it works > on most implementations, and it satisfies your requirements. > If you don't want to use it, that's absolutely fine. Oh I do want to use it =) But I also want to see the 100% correct version =P
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Abdulaziz Ghuloum<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote: > >> It's not at all clear that you can write unbound? in R6RS... > > I already said I don't think it's 100% correct, but it works > on most implementations, and it satisfies your requirements. > If you don't want to use it, that's absolutely fine. > >> In Aziz's definition of unbound? he used the suggestive name >> "empty-ctxt", but I don't think a "context" is part of the R6RS >> ontology - is it? > > Yes. R6RS uses the word context for many things: > 1. tail/nontail context > 2. dynamic context > 3. expression/definition context > 4. context[ual] information: lexical scope, source information > > This is all from r6rs-lib.pdf. And by empty-ctxt, I meant the > last one: an identifier that has no contextual information: it > does not capture any variables, and it has no source information. > >> Is there another document with a more precise description of >> syntax-case macros, that may be a useful reference for the future? > > If you mean the R6RS syntax-case, then no. We have to wait for > TSPL4. > >> By the way (this might need a new list topic) what is your opinion >> of SRFI 72? > > My opinion is "I don't like almost all of it". :-) > > Aziz,,, >
