[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Semantics of Internal Definitions
On the proposal to change the semantics of internal definitions, you wrote:
> From: "Guillermo J. Rozas" <email@example.com>
> I don't particularly object to this, but there are cases that have not
> been specified, namely ....
The semantics you favor is exactly the one I had in mind. For
example, a program and its equivalent are shown below.
(lambda (...) (lambda (...)
(define a E_1) (let ((a <unspecified>)
E_2 ==> (b <unspecified>)
(define b E_3) (set! a E_1)
(set! b E_3)
This is the behavior what one would expect given the definition of a
program as defined in the first appendix of the Scheme report. Let's
simply use the same translation for internal definitions.