> > A better wording might have been: > > An internal definition or syntax definition must not define any > identifier > whose binding or lack of binding in surrounding code has already affected > the > expansion of preceding portions of the body, up to and including any > undeferred the > portions of the definition or syntax definition itself. >
It looks like there's a word missing here. Perhaps add "in" after "undeferred?" I still find it confusing.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
