On Fri 24 Feb 2012 06:40, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> writes:

> What I'd like to do is to drop this language altogether and just say (as
> we already do) that it's an error to set an undefined identifier.  Then we
> can add a note saying that some implementations extend the standard by
> automatically defining any undefined identifier before setting it.
> This language belongs with `set!`.

If it were only this simple, sure.  But this distinction between unbound
and bound affects introduced toplevel macro bindings.  If the identifier
is really unbound, the introduced identifier should be given a fresh
name.  If not, not.

It's a very ugly corner of the language.

Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/