Am Mo., 4. Dez. 2023 um 09:36 Uhr schrieb Amirouche <amirou...@hyper.dev>:
> > > > > Le sam. 2 déc. 2023 à 13:29, Vladimir Nikishkin <lockyw...@gmail.com > <Le+sam.+2+déc.+2023+à+13:29,+Vladimir+Nikishkin+%3C%3Ca+href=>> a écrit : > > I do think that the srfi 251 semantic is more consistent with the > Scheme spirit, in the sense of the definitions being "simultaneous". > > Same here. > Are you then able to explain what this is supposed to mean? > In fact, I was very surprised to see 245 being proposed. > > On Sat, 2 Dec 2023 at 17:54, Daphne Preston-Kendal <d...@nonceword.org> > wrote: > > > > On 2 Dec 2023, at 02:54, Per Bothner <p...@bothner.com> wrote: > > > > > Also consider: > > > > > > (let ((x 10)) > > > (display "the result is: ") > > > (display x) > > > (define x 42)) > > > (newline)) > > > > > > I believe the result here should be undefined - but *not* 10. > > > > Indeed, this is An Error in SRFI 245. > > > > > > Daphne > > > > > -- > Yours sincerely, Vladimir Nikishkin > (Sent from GMail web interface.) > >
