On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 13:43 -0500, Andre van Tonder wrote: > On Fri, 24 Dec 2010, Peter Kourzanov wrote: > > > Any pointers to where this is specified? If a re-definition is the > > same as assignment, then why this yields 1 (in all R5RS implementations > > I know) > > > > (define x 1) > > (let () (define x 2) x) > > x > > Because the internal definition creates and then assigns a new location > whose region is restricted to the body of the LET. >
Yes, that's my interpretation too. It just doesn't align well with this description: "that case turns into an implicit assignment in R5RS (sans modules)" (of Eli). _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss