s7 suggestion bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 13:40 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 15:15 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 15:56 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 16:19 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 16:32 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 17:54 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 18:07 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 21:27 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 21:36 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 23:03 UTC)
&key vs :key in the lambda list Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 23:17 UTC)
Re: &key vs :key in the lambda list John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 23:18 UTC)
Re: &key vs :key in the lambda list Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 23:27 UTC)
Syntax for hygienic vs non-hygienic keywords Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 23:33 UTC)
Re: allow-other-keys bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 19:51 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (29 Oct 2019 16:33 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 16:53 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 17:10 UTC)
Including 177 in s7? Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 17:34 UTC)

Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela 29 Oct 2019 16:32 UTC

>> (with-let (unlet) ...) goes underneath the global environment, so to
>> speak,
>> giving you the built-in startup values, so even set! at the top level
>> won't
>> affect it.  There are, of course, many other choices.  I added some more
>> examples to s7.html this morning.
>
> Aha, so instead of temporarily "unwinding" the stack of current lexical
> environments, it *adds* a copy of the default environment as the
> innermost environment. Brilliant.

To be pedantic, for full hygiene it should probably get only the
`lambda*` binding used by the macro from the default environment, and
preserve all lexical bindings in `body` even if the user overrode some
standard names. Including preserving the user's binding of `lambda*`
inside `body`. But I'm not sure whether this has any practical relevance
anymore.