On Sep 13, 2009, at 11:25 PM, Andre van Tonder wrote: > 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.
Then I'm not following exactly. How are you going to handle the expression (f) in one pass and still make its f still refer to the inner f (that you haven't seen yet)? Aziz,,, _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
