On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 09:35 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Aaron W. Hsu scripsit:
>
> > You lose the ability to separately compile modules, so they do not
> > replace compilation units like `define-library`,
>
> Can you update LetSyntaxArcfide into a proposal for WG2 that supplements
> rather than replaces `define-library`?  I would be glad to consider such
> a thing.

I will be trying to do such a thing. While I hope to have some time
during the summer, now is not it, so I'll try to get to this when I
can.

> > but they excel at replacing `let-syntax` or for modularizing circularly
> > dependent code.
>
> Please try to keep a grip on the fact that R7RS-small `let-syntax`, like
> the R5RS version, is a scope rather than being spliced into the surrounding
> scope.  See ticket #48 and WG1Ballot2Results.

Indeed, I was happy to see this change in R6RS reverted given the
experiences implementors had with it.

--
Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us

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