[Larceny-users] Bug in syntax-rules expander (R6RS semantics changed?)

[David Rush]

2009/9/25 William D Clinger <will at ccs.neu.edu>:
> Larceny's let-syntax conforms to the R5RS specification.
> PLT's let-syntax implements a recommendation made at one
> of the Scheme workshops some years ago: that let-syntax
> not introduce a new scope.
>
> The R6RS adopted the semantics implemented by PLT, and

Ah.

> it's a bug if Larceny doesn't support that semantics in
> ERR5RS/R6RS modes.

I haven't tried and don't much care, but it is good to know about
LET-SYNTAX in this context. Having never used it before (and
programmed around that in various ways) I didn't have any feel for
what to expect. In point of fact, I can see it making sense for
let-syntax working either way, depending on the emphasis on pragmatics
versus semantic clarity.

> Larceny's R5RS mode still supports the R5RS semantics,

I will work within that then. If worse comes to worst I can always
move the syntax rules out of the let-syntax form and up to the
toplevel.

What about the requirement for an actual expression (as opposed to
just DEFINEs) within top-level BEGIN?

david rush
-- 
replied belatedly to the list...