Re: Problems technical and procedural

What if we explicitly mark situations where there is an identifier that would refer to an outside scope in SRFI-251 semantics while referring to "over-the-run-of-commands" definition according to SRFI-245 semantics, and only those situations, as "it is an error"? Would it still leave enough useful

Re: Problems technical and procedural

On 2 Dec 2023, at 16:32, Sergei Egorov wrote: • It doesn’t map cleanly onto letrec*; >>> Bodies allow various kinds of definitions, including define-syntax, so >>> mapping is never as clean as it used to be. This SRFI is as clean as R7RS >>> it translates to. In fact, its semantics is defi

Re: Problems technical and procedural

(comment at the very end)On Dec 2, 2023, at 11:02 AM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:Am Sa., 2. Dez. 2023 um 17:05 Uhr schrieb Sergei Egorov :  > On Dec 2, 2023, at 5:12 AM, Daphne Preston-Kendal wrote: > On 2 Dec 2023, at 11:45, Sergei Egorov wrot

Re: Problems technical and procedural

Am Sa., 2. Dez. 2023 um 17:05 Uhr schrieb Sergei Egorov : > > On Dec 2, 2023, at 5:12 AM, Daphne Preston-Kendal > wrote: > > On 2 Dec 2023, at 11:45, Sergei Egorov wrote: > >>> • It doesn’t map cleanly onto letrec*; > >> Bodies allow various kinds of definitions, including define-syntax, so >

Fwd: Problems technical and procedural

> On Dec 2, 2023, at 5:12 AM, Daphne Preston-Kendal wrote: > On 2 Dec 2023, at 11:45, Sergei Egorov wrote: >>> • It doesn’t map cleanly onto letrec*; >> Bodies allow various kinds of definitions, including define-syntax, so >> mapping is never as clean as it used to be. This SRFI is as clean

Re: Problems technical and procedural

On 2 Dec 2023, at 11:45, Sergei Egorov wrote: >> • It doesn’t map cleanly onto letrec*; > Bodies allow various kinds of definitions, including define-syntax, so > mapping is never as clean as it used to be. This SRFI is as clean as R7RS it > translates to. In fact, its semantics is defined more

Re: Problems technical and procedural

please see comments below... > On Dec 2, 2023, at 5:00 AM, Daphne Preston-Kendal wrote: > > Here are some problems with SRFI 251: > > • It’s not what existing implementations do when presented with mixed bodies; True, limited existing practice points to a different direction. Many SRFIs have

Re: Problems technical and procedural

Am Sa., 2. Dez. 2023 um 11:00 Uhr schrieb Daphne Preston-Kendal < d...@nonceword.org>: > Here are some problems with SRFI 251: > > • It’s not what existing implementations do when presented with mixed > bodies; > > • It doesn’t map cleanly onto letrec*; > > • It’s compatible neither with the R6RS

Problems technical and procedural

Here are some problems with SRFI 251: • It’s not what existing implementations do when presented with mixed bodies; • It doesn’t map cleanly onto letrec*; • It’s compatible neither with the R6RS expansion order for all bodies, nor with the R6RS top-level program body semantics; • If you insert