Le vendredi 04 août 2023 à 10:23 +0200, Damien Mattei a écrit : > i know what disturb me in this error, it is because the order of > definitions has effect but i always learn (was it right?) that in > scheme the order of definitions should have no effect on the resulting > evaluations.
Not really, you cannot do (define b (1+ a)) (define a 5) either. You *can* do (define (b) (1+ a)) (define a 5) but that's because the definition of b does not use the binding for a, only capture it in a lambda abstraction. The reason you cannot do (define b (mac 1)) (define-syntax-rule (mac x) x) is that the (mac 1) expression used in the binding of b is using the macro (at expand time), just like in my first example it was using the variable a (at runtime).
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
