Alex Shinn scripsit: > I believe John's presumption is incorrect here. The correct > interpretation of the current R7RS draft is that the binding > refer to the redefinition in the inner scope, just as if there > were no outer binding. If the the inner scoped binding is > syntax then it is an error, in which case the R6RS behavior > would be allowed (as well as nasal daemons of course).
On reflection, I agree. Editorial ticket filed. -- No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan address all questions by piling on ridiculous [email protected] internal links in forms which are hideously over-complex. --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
