[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Scheme-reports] redefining eqv?
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