Andre van Tonder scripsit:

> Well, the imported bindings are not valid outside the module-level
> BEGIN form. You cannot import DEFINE and then use it in the module
> outside a BEGIN form, so BEGIN delimits a lexical area in the code
> inside of which imported bindings are valid and outside of which they
> are not.

That's because outside a BEGIN there are no bindings, because the
top-level language of a module isn't Scheme: there is no concept of
bindings there.

> You keep saying module-level BEGIN splices (and teh document also
> says so on p 21, comapring it to topplevel BEGIN).  This is either
> wring or we are using a different sens of "splice". haven't we already
> established that module-level BEGIN is the only BEGIN that /doesn't/
> splice?  In other words, unless I am missing something, module-level
> BEGIN cannot be replaced by the inclded sequence.

No, it can't.  I am not using "splice" in the sense of "can be replaced
by its context" (as I showed before, expression BEGIN is not splicing in
that sense) but in the sense of not introducing a new lexical scope.

--
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:
"Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"
El Auruns's reply:  "Many happy returns of the day!"

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