Am Sa., 2. Dez. 2023 um 17:01 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler < [email protected]>:
[...] > I don't understand this response to SRFI 251. I understand objecting on > technical grounds, although I will take off my editor's hat for the rest of > this sentence and say, for a moment, that I find the proposal perfectly > reasonable and, in some ways, more natural in that it matches the > experience at the REPL. > Back to technical issues: In what sense do you think it matches the experience at the REPL? At the REPL (leaving syntax definitions and expansions aside, which are problematic to get right at the top level anyway), a mutually recursive definition can be separated by as many expressions as possible. This is the SRFI 245 semantics (and the semantics of program and library bodies).
