Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question

2008-10-24 Thread Drake Wilson
Quoth Shawn Rutledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 2008-10-23 23:54:03 -0700: > > Eval only sees the top-level environment. It may be possible to use > > the environments egg to construct your own environment containing v. > > I thought of that, but also thought there must be a generic Scheme way > to

Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question

2008-10-24 Thread Shawn Rutledge
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Drake Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoth Shawn Rutledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 2008-10-23 23:54:03 -0700: >> > Eval only sees the top-level environment. It may be possible to use >> > the environments egg to construct your own environment containing v. >> >

Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question

2008-10-24 Thread Drake Wilson
Quoth Shawn Rutledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 2008-10-24 10:20:12 -0700: > Right that's the usual pattern. But I'm trying to call it remotely. > > A client REPL opens an SSH connection to a server and starts a server > REPL. Each of them evaluates what the other sends. So if the server > sends >

Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question

2008-10-24 Thread Shawn Rutledge
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Drake Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you mean "later" as in "after the let", the v doesn't exist anymore. Well it's not going to be garbage-collected if an accessor is created inside the let, which can do destructive operations on it later. Here's a way to

Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question

2008-10-24 Thread John Cowan
Shawn Rutledge scripsit: > A client REPL opens an SSH connection to a server and starts a server > REPL. Each of them evaluates what the other sends. So if the server > sends > (let ([v (make-thing)]) >...) > and the client evaluates it, then later the server wants to ask the > client to do

Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question

2008-10-24 Thread Drake Wilson
Quoth Shawn Rutledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 2008-10-24 12:02:52 -0700: > Oh, maybe you are right though: maybe the symbol 'v doesn't exist > anymore, because in the counter example, the accessor only needs to > access the number to which 'v was bound. So it can replace the symbol > with a referen

Re: [Chicken-users] basic Scheme question

2008-10-24 Thread John Cowan
Shawn Rutledge scripsit: > [W]hy should I have to re-create functionality which is one of the > most basic features of Scheme (being able to look up symbols and get > values bound to them) Actually, it isn't: Scheme has no such facility. Symbols in Scheme have no properties except their print na