It is designed for lexical scope, yes. If you have a language with it's own interesting, non-standard notion of scope, you will probably have to (and, indeed, want to) model it explicitly.
Robby On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Leandro Facchinetti <[email protected]> wrote: >> Woah, cool! >> >> Since the book was written, we have added support for binding >> specifications to Redex. It's documentation is still in the process of >> being improved, but you might have some interest in checking it out >> (it is the part after #:binding-forms). > > I read the documentation and this feature is really impressive. In > particular, I liked that Redex is able to recognize that two terms are > alpha-equivalent! > > The way I understood from my first reading, it seems like the binding > feature handles well lexical scoping. Would it be able to support a > language with dynamic scoping? > > I ask that because I'm currently working on a language which notion of > scoping is something in between lexical and dynamic. > >> Bugs in substitution functions are the worst. > > Indeed :) > -- > Leandro Facchinetti <[email protected]> > https://www.leafac.com > GPG key: 3DF3D583 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
