Andre van Tonder scripsit: > Well, the imported bindings are not valid outside the module-level > BEGIN form. You cannot import DEFINE and then use it in the module > outside a BEGIN form, so BEGIN delimits a lexical area in the code > inside of which imported bindings are valid and outside of which they > are not.
That's because outside a BEGIN there are no bindings, because the top-level language of a module isn't Scheme: there is no concept of bindings there. > You keep saying module-level BEGIN splices (and teh document also > says so on p 21, comapring it to topplevel BEGIN). This is either > wring or we are using a different sens of "splice". haven't we already > established that module-level BEGIN is the only BEGIN that /doesn't/ > splice? In other words, unless I am missing something, module-level > BEGIN cannot be replaced by the inclded sequence. No, it can't. I am not using "splice" in the sense of "can be replaced by its context" (as I showed before, expression BEGIN is not splicing in that sense) but in the sense of not introducing a new lexical scope. -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo: "Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!" El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!" _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
