On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:35:53 -0400, Alex Shinn <alexshinn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As you say, there is no "=>" bound in (scheme base).
>> So long as it's not bound in the usage context it will
>> thus work with `cond'.
>
> I forget, has the ramifications of this to the REPL semantics been
> discussed? Some Schemes specifically treat all identifiers as implicitly
> bound at the top-level in the REPL, which makes implicit auxiliary
> keywords fail at the REPL, though they still work inside of libraries.

That's an interesting point, I don't recall it being brought up.

It was my understanding that implementations which do this
only apply it to identifiers that are actually referenced, not just
matched during expansion, and even then it's unclear if the
implicit binding is hygienically any different from the (scheme
base) (non-)binding.

Is there actually any implementation for which this could
be a problem?

--
Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports