[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] hygienic branch (progress report, sort of)
From: |
felix winkelmann |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] hygienic branch (progress report, sort of) |
Date: |
Tue, 27 May 2008 09:33:21 +0200 |
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Jim Ursetto <address@hidden> wrote:
> Possible bug? Despite lambda being renamed in define's definition
> in expand.scm, it seems to break hygiene:
>
> (let ((lambda 3)) (define (foo x) x))
>
Hm... Yes, the expansion of lambda-bodies is pretty broken in several
ways. I have committed a change that may help for this particular
case, but the expansion of body-forms still uses the wrong syntactical
environment. I'll work on that.
cheers,
felix
- Re: [Chicken-users] hygienic branch (progress report, sort of), (continued)
- Re: [Chicken-users] hygienic branch (progress report, sort of), Hans Bulfone, 2008/05/16
- Re: [Chicken-users] hygienic branch (progress report, sort of), Andrew Gwozdziewycz, 2008/05/16
- Re: [Chicken-users] hygienic branch (progress report, sort of), Jim Ursetto, 2008/05/26
- Re: [Chicken-users] hygienic branch (progress report, sort of),
felix winkelmann <=