Hi,
I'd like to clarify one point here.
On Mon 23 Jan 2012 13:52, Andy Wingo writes:
> If we want to change the format of , we have two
> more compelling options. One would be to make a compatible change,
> but that's not always possible.
An example of a compatible change would be adding a fi
Hi Mark!
Thanks for your review of my patches. I would like to say, "our
patches", as they are not really mine, but I understand if you don't
want to claim parentage in this case :)
I fixed the module-related scope issues by adding a new accessor for
syntax objects, `syntax-module'. It is like
Hi Andy,
> There's another thing that really should be fixed, for the sake of
> preserving our ability to change the implementation `local-eval' in the
> future.
>
> Since (the-environment) can be included in code compiled to disk, the
> lexical environment objects that it returns are effectively
Andy Wingo skribis:
> (define-syntax lexicals
> (lambda (x)
> (syntax-case x ()
> ((lexicals) #'(lexicals lexicals))
> ((lexicals scope)
> (with-syntax (((id ...)
> (filter (lambda
There's another thing that really should be fixed, for the sake of
preserving our ability to change the implementation `local-eval' in the
future.
Since (the-environment) can be included in code compiled to disk, the
lexical environment objects that it returns are effectively now part of
our ABI.
Hi Andy. Thanks for following through on this. As you probably
noticed, my motivation to work on `local-eval' has largely dissipated,
so it's great that you finished this up in time for 2.0.4.
I haven't yet had time to fully review these patches, but for now, a
quick scan reveals a few remaining
On Fri 20 Jan 2012 13:33, Andy Wingo writes:
> Here are a couple of patches.
Aaaand, the patches:
>From f549f273139bda9591194766157bb771a67d9563 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andy Wingo
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:39:44 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] add syntax-locally-bound-identifiers
* module/i
