Re: [Scheme-reports] Draft 3 Comments: Chapter 6 Denis Washington (03 Aug 2011 21:50 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Draft 3 Comments: Chapter 6 Andre van Tonder (03 Aug 2011 21:59 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Draft 3 Comments: Chapter 6 Andre van Tonder (03 Aug 2011 22:05 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Draft 3 Comments: Chapter 6 Alex Shinn (04 Aug 2011 01:20 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Draft 3 Comments: Chapter 6 John Cowan (04 Aug 2011 03:46 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Draft 3 Comments: Chapter 6 Alex Shinn (04 Aug 2011 03:52 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Draft 3 Comments: Chapter 6 Andre van Tonder (04 Aug 2011 04:06 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Draft 3 Comments: Chapter 6 John Cowan (04 Aug 2011 21:45 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Draft 3 Comments: Chapter 6 John Cowan (05 Aug 2011 05:30 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] Draft 3 Comments: Chapter 6 Andre van Tonder 04 Aug 2011 04:05 UTC

On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Alex Shinn wrote:

> It's the environment programs start with.
>
> The result is that any program can be cut&paste into
> an interactive REPL and still work, and any interactive
> session can be saved and used as a program, so long
> as it's prefixed with (import (scheme base)).

Even if the program contains imports conflicting with prior imports or bindings
in the REPL (assuming as John does a non-empty REPL), or redefinitions of
bindings previously imported into the REPL?

If so, the behaviour of teplevel import would be different from that of module
level imports.  Maybe this should be clarified more.

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