[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 Bushnell BSG |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] serious bug ? in units and set! |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:46:48 -0700 |
On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 10:30 +0200, Thomas Chust wrote:
> 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.
Of course. But test2.scm has no set! at top level:
(declare (unit test2) (export blah))
(define (blah) (display (format "foo: ~s\n" foo)) (set! foo 'whiz))
Thomas
- [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, 2009/09/22
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] serious bug ? in units and set!,
Thomas Bushnell BSG <=
- 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