David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
>> * I still wouldn't be surprised if `local-eval' does the wrong thing if
>> (current-module) is different from what it was when the associated
>> `primitive-eval' was called.
>
> Before anyone even _defines_ what the "right thing" would be, there is
> little point in worrying about this. I don't think that `local-eval'
> 1.8 documented any behavior for this case (well, it did not document any
> behavior for a lot of cases).
>
> So it probably makes sense to look afterwards what will happen without
> special precautions, and unless that is spectacularly useless or
> inconsistent, call it the "right thing" by definition.
Maybe it makes even more sense (at this stage) to state that the
behaviour in this case is undefined?
Peter
--
Peter Brett <pe...@peter-b.co.uk>
Remote Sensing Research Group
Surrey Space Centre
