Hello all,
If Andy finishes his version of `local-eval', that's all well and good,
and I'm happy to use his version. However, in case he doesn't have time
to address the remaining issues in his implementation before 2.0.4, or
if he'd like some more time to think about the other new interfaces
bef
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Call me stubborn, but I _still_ think it would be better to use this
> implementation in 2.0.4, and to revert both `syntax-local-binding' and
> maybe also `universally-unique gensyms' for now. I'm not opposed to
> Andy's approach, but I think we need more time to debate t
David Kastrup writes:
> I am not sure about the strength of the respective dependencies, but let
> me just say that "universally-unique gensyms" as an idea has a bad ring
> to me. It makes the output of the compiler non-deterministic. This
> makes a lot of simple verification methods (like check
Replying to myself...
> David Kastrup writes:
>> I am not sure about the strength of the respective dependencies, but let
>> me just say that "universally-unique gensyms" as an idea has a bad ring
>> to me. It makes the output of the compiler non-deterministic. This
>> makes a lot of simple ver
