Hi Guilers,
Alright, I've been banging my head against this for several weeks now
and only just had the time to sit down and research this: If you use a
symbol in an `(ice-9 syncase)' macro definition that's bound in the
lexical closure in which that definition lives, then that binding
should be t
Julian Graham writes:
> Hi Guilers,
>
> Alright, I've been banging my head against this for several weeks now
> and only just had the time to sit down and research this: If you use a
> symbol in an `(ice-9 syncase)' macro definition that's bound in the
> lexical closure in which that definition l
This does strike me as a serious problem (and it's a spanner in the
works for implementing R6RS libraries). In effect, isn't the bug
saying that Guile's syncase macros aren't totally hygienic? That is,
in my example, if you provide your own binding for `foo-function' in
the REPL environment, then
Andreas Rottmann writes:
> Nothing, this is a deficiency in Guile:
> https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?20941. I wonder why it is marked as
> "invalid", though.
Regardless of how it's marked, I'm still hoping to get to this soon.
Neil
Julian Graham writes:
> This does strike me as a serious problem (and it's a spanner in the
> works for implementing R6RS libraries). In effect, isn't the bug
> saying that Guile's syncase macros aren't totally hygienic? That is,
> in my example, if you provide your own binding for `foo-functio
