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)
|
>> (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.