On Sun, 13 Sep 2009, Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote: > > On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:55 PM, Andre van Tonder wrote: > >> No, I think that kind of thing should be required to be an error >> in 1-pass, since it would break the usual lexical scope. > > If you think > > (let-syntax ((f (syntax-rules () ((_) 1)))) > (let () > (define (g) (f)) > (define (f) 2) > (g))) > > should be an error, do you also think that > > (let ([f (lambda () 1)]) > (let () > (define (g) (f)) > (define (f) 2) > (g))) > > should also be an error?
Of course not. Andre _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
