On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
I think the meaning of print x should be statically determined. That is, the programmer should be able to determine the binding environment in which x will be resolved (for print x) by inspection of the code.
I haven't had time in a while to follow up on this thread, but i just wanted to say that i think this is a reasonable and sane course of action. I see the flaws in the model i was advocating, and i'm sorry for consuming all that time in the discussion. -- ?!ng Post Scriptum: On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Jeremy Hylton wrote:
KPY> I tried STk Scheme, guile, and elisp, and they all do this.
I guess I'm just dense then. Can you show me an example?
The example is pretty much exactly what you wrote: (define (f) (eval '(define y 2)) y) It produced 2. But several sources have confirmed that this is just bad implementation behaviour, so i'm willing to consider that a red herring. Believe it or not, in some Schemes, the following actually happens! STk> (define x 1) x STk> (define (func flag) (if flag (define x 2)) (lambda () (set! x 3))) func STk> ((func #t)) STk> x 1 STk> ((func #f)) STk> x 3 More than one professor that i showed the above to screamed.