On 6/22/07, William D Clinger <will at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> Onnie Winebarger wrote:
>
> > I do not see the possibility of one library redefining another
> library
> > out of meaningful existence as a feature.
>
> One man's feature is another man's bug.
>
I think it is surprising you would embrace this "feature". It means
either the library "variables" are mutable or have a sort of dynamic scope.
By the latter, I mean that if I reference a certain standard library when
writing a library, that's the one that's in lexical scope.
So are library variables really mutable in this fashion in this draft?
If so, it seems inconsistent.
Lynn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20070623/01cc0495/attachment-0001.htm
Received on Sat Jun 23 2007 - 08:02:56 UTC