[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Problem with cond macro.
From: |
Dirk Herrmann |
Subject: |
Re: Problem with cond macro. |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Apr 2002 21:46:42 +0200 (MEST) |
On 26 Apr 2002, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Well, I'm not sure I understand all of this: What about the following:
> >
> > (define => #f)
> > (cond (#t => 'ok))
> >
> > Should this also deliver 'ok ? It doesn't seem to with the current
> > implementation of syncase.
>
> Syncase is not really totally integrated with the module system yet, I
> think. That's why it can be confused by top-level bindings.
OK, but can you definitely say "Yes, it should deliver 'ok" or not? I am
not sure it is said explicitly in R5RS. If a macro introduces a bound
identifier, it is renamed in the subforms. I am not sure if and how this
applies for 'define.
Best regards
Dirk Herrmann
- Re: Problem with cond macro., (continued)
- Re: Problem with cond macro., Julian v. Bock, 2002/04/16
- Re: Problem with cond macro., Joshua Judson Rosen, 2002/04/16
- Re: Problem with cond macro., Panagiotis Vossos, 2002/04/16
- Re: Problem with cond macro., Neil Jerram, 2002/04/17
- Re: Problem with cond macro., Neil Jerram, 2002/04/20
- Re: Problem with cond macro., Neil Jerram, 2002/04/20
Re: Problem with cond macro., Keith Wright, 2002/04/17