[Larceny-users] Ticket 638

[Lynn Winebarger]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Derick Eddington
<derick.eddington at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Larceny's phase mismatch detection is very preferable to
> allowing separate namespaces (that would be very unSchemely) for
> different phases such that `cons' would be allowed unbound at phase -1
> but bound at the phases it's imported for.  And this detection is
> consistent with the fact that R6RS requires preventing importing the
> same name but different bindings at different phases.

At the risk of carrying on an exchange in the wrong forum, I can't
find such a requirement by R6RS (preventing the importing the
same name but different bindings at different phases).  What I
have seen indicates the opposite is true - see the response to
formal comment #92 for example.

Lynn