It is designed for lexical scope, yes. If you have a language with it's own interesting, non-standard notion of scope, you will probably have to (and, indeed, want to) model it explicitly.
Robby On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Leandro Facchinetti <lfacc...@jhu.edu> wrote: >> Woah, cool! >> >> Since the book was written, we have added support for binding >> specifications to Redex. It's documentation is still in the process of >> being improved, but you might have some interest in checking it out >> (it is the part after #:binding-forms). > > I read the documentation and this feature is really impressive. In > particular, I liked that Redex is able to recognize that two terms are > alpha-equivalent! > > The way I understood from my first reading, it seems like the binding > feature handles well lexical scoping. Would it be able to support a > language with dynamic scoping? > > I ask that because I'm currently working on a language which notion of > scoping is something in between lexical and dynamic. > >> Bugs in substitution functions are the worst. > > Indeed :) > -- > Leandro Facchinetti <lfacc...@jhu.edu> > https://www.leafac.com > GPG key: 3DF3D583 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
