On Fri 24 Feb 2012 06:40, John Cowan <[email protected]> writes:
> What I'd like to do is to drop this language altogether and just say (as > we already do) that it's an error to set an undefined identifier. Then we > can add a note saying that some implementations extend the standard by > automatically defining any undefined identifier before setting it. > This language belongs with `set!`. If it were only this simple, sure. But this distinction between unbound and bound affects introduced toplevel macro bindings. If the identifier is really unbound, the introduced identifier should be given a fresh name. If not, not. It's a very ugly corner of the language. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
