Group Email Manager

login signup
[Scheme-reports] EVAL Andre van Tonder (23 Apr 2011 23:47 UTC)
[Scheme-reports] What happened to (UNQUOTE <expression> ...) Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 00:04 UTC)
[Scheme-reports] Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 00:15 UTC)
[Scheme-reports] COND, CASE, AND, ... macros are buggy Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 00:24 UTC)
[Scheme-reports] Buggy definition of BEGIN Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 00:33 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Buggy definition of BEGIN Jussi Piitulainen (24 Apr 2011 06:55 UTC)
[Scheme-reports] Restrictions on internal BEGIN? Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 01:45 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Restrictions on internal BEGIN? Jussi Piitulainen (24 Apr 2011 07:20 UTC)
[Scheme-reports] Toplevel import scoping Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 02:02 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Toplevel import scoping Alex Shinn (24 Apr 2011 02:44 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Toplevel import scoping Aaron W. Hsu (29 Apr 2011 17:11 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Toplevel import scoping Aaron W. Hsu (29 Apr 2011 17:10 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 15:53 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Aaron W. Hsu (24 May 2011 18:51 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Sztefan Edwards (25 May 2011 14:32 UTC)
Re: Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Aaron W. Hsu (25 May 2011 20:03 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Perry E. Metzger (07 Nov 2011 18:40 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Are generated toplevel definitions secret? Perry E. Metzger (07 Nov 2011 18:45 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] What happened to (UNQUOTE <expression> ...) Andre van Tonder (24 Apr 2011 03:10 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] EVAL Alex Shinn (24 Apr 2011 02:10 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] EVAL John Cowan (24 Apr 2011 06:56 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] Toplevel import scoping Aaron W. Hsu 29 Apr 2011 17:10 UTC 
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 22:02:26 -0400, Andre van Tonder <andre@het.brown.edu>
wrote:

> (define x 0)
> (define (get-x) x)
> (import (foo))
> (display x)              ==> 1
> (display (get-x))        ==> WHICH WILL IT BE?

IMO, an import into the top-level of the REPL should redefine any bindings
exported of the same name as they were defined otherwise.

In other words, the above definition of GET-X contains a free reference to
X. That X should not be "dereferenced" until GET-X is applied, at which
point, the binding for X is that exported by (foo).

	Aaron W. Hsu

--
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.

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