[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] serious bug ? in units and set!
From: |
Thomas Chust |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] serious bug ? in units and set! |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:30:41 +0200 |
2009/9/22 Thomas Bushnell BSG <address@hidden>:
> What are you talking about? Nothing in test2.scm establishes a binding
> for foo.
> [...]
Hello,
(set! foo 'whiz) at the top level with no previously defined variable
called foo *does* establish a binding for foo.
Ciao,
Thomas
--
All these theories, diverse as they are, have two things in common: They
explain the observed facts, and they are completely and utterly wrong.
-- Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"
- [Chicken-hackers] serious bug ? in units and set!, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2009/09/21
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] serious bug ? in units and set!, Jim Ursetto, 2009/09/22
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] serious bug ? in units and set!, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2009/09/22
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] serious bug ? in units and set!,
Thomas Chust <=
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] serious bug ? in units and set!, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2009/09/22
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] serious bug ? in units and set!, Thomas Chust, 2009/09/22
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] serious bug ? in units and set!, Jim Ursetto, 2009/09/22
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] serious bug ? in units and set!, Thomas Chust, 2009/09/22
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] serious bug ? in units and set!, Jim Ursetto, 2009/09/22