Andy Wingo writes: > On Fri 24 Feb 2012 06:40, John Cowan 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.
Implementations can do anything they like when the report says "it is an error". _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
