On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> At Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:52:26 -0500, Robby Findler wrote:
>> Unless someone knows why it is a bad idea, how about adding a #:all?
>> argument that flattens all the way down?
>>
>> I don't see many uses of flatten-begin in our tree, but the one in
>> compatibility/package sure looks like it could use the #:all?
>> argument.
>
> I don't think so. Eagerly flattening would break examples like
>
> (begin
> (define begin +)
> (begin 1 2)))
>
Oh, I see I missed the call to local-expand in the loop, sorry.
But what is this supposed to do at the REPL? DrRacket and Racket at
least agree, but it isn't what I would have predicted:
> (begin
(define begin +)
(begin 1 2))
. begin: function application is not allowed;
no #%app syntax transformer is bound in: (begin 1 2)
Are they doing the right thing?
(Inside a module we get the expected 3.)
Robby
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
