On Sep 25, 2009, at 9:04 AM, David Rush wrote: > 2009/9/25 William D Clinger <w...@ccs.neu.edu>: > >> it's a bug if Larceny doesn't support that semantics in >> ERR5RS/R6RS modes. > > I haven't tried and don't much care, but it is good to know about > LET-SYNTAX in this context. Having never used it before (and > programmed around that in various ways) I didn't have any feel for > what to expect. In point of fact, I can see it making sense for > let-syntax working either way, depending on the emphasis on pragmatics > versus semantic clarity.
One can always get the effect specified by R5RS by wrapping a (let () ...) around the (let-syntax ...), which could itself be specified as a separate syntax-rules macro. I do not think the other direction is possible, which is the best argument I can see for making the change to the let-syntax scoping semantics. (When Will suggests making an R5RS library providing the alternative let-syntax semantics, I assume he is thinking of using an explicitly- renaming procedural macro to accomplish that task. But maybe I have made an invalid inference.) -Felix _______________________________________________ Larceny-users mailing list Larceny-users@lists.ccs.neu.edu https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/larceny-users
