Alex Shinn scripsit:

> I believe John's presumption is incorrect here.  The correct
> interpretation of the current R7RS draft is that the binding
> refer to the redefinition in the inner scope, just as if there
> were no outer binding.  If the the inner scoped binding is
> syntax then it is an error, in which case the R6RS behavior
> would be allowed (as well as nasal daemons of course).

On reflection, I agree.  Editorial ticket filed.

--
No,  John.  I want formats that are actually       John Cowan
useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
address all questions by piling on ridiculous      cowan@ccil.org
internal links in forms which are hideously
over-complex. --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev

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