Re: New read/eval Scheme syntax inconsistent in handling existing code

[Valentin Villenave]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:58 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> It wouldn't have worked but you used to rely on it?

This is because I tried to come up with a minimal example (my code is
a tad more complex and *did* work).

> Huh?  That is just the old well-known premature evaluation order timing
> problem that $ has inherited from #.
>
> Write #(eval-string ... instead and the example presumably does what you
> want.

Unfortunately, it does not.

> It looks like you complain that something that did not work before now
> can be kept from working when you rewrite it in a special discouraged
> and completely unnecessary way that is documented to work just as badly
> as # did before my changes.
>
> If that's the worst effect on your scores you can come up with, I can
> live with that.
>
> Apparently I lack the imagination to understand the nature of your
> problem given this example.  Can you find an example that is better
> suited to my limited capacities?
>
> Or do you actually _rely_ on the wrong evaluation order for some strange
> reason?  If you do, you'll be able to use $ (possibly in connection with
> *unspecified* to avoid interpretation) to get things evaluated in the
> old unnatural order.
>
> --
> David Kastrup