[R6RS] safe and unsafe; declarations

Tue Feb 28 16:30:47 EST 2006

Kent wrote:
> 1. You say that "implementation-specific declarations are likely to have
> static rather than dynamic scope."  What about the standard declarations?
> If static, will they be hygienic in the sense that a declaration
> introduced by a macro affects only the code introduced by that macro?

First I should fix an ambiguity in my position paper.
When I wrote

    The variable-specific declarations of an R5RS <body>
    may refer only to the variables bound by the binding
    construct that immediately surrounds the <body>.

I meant that the variables mentioned by an inline declaration,
and the variables that follow a <typespec>, must be bound by
the binding construct that immediately surrounds the body.
The variables that appear as a <bound> or <rtd> within a
<typespec> should not be so constrained.

It seems to me that all of these variables, both those that
appear within a <typespec> and those that follow a <typespec>,
should be resolved according to the usual rules for variable
references.

The keywords that can appear within a declaration (unsafe,
safety, fast, small, debug, inline, type, number?, complex?,
real?, etc) should be resolved according to the usual rules
for keywords such as COND's ELSE keyword.

Will