Opened 7 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

#48 closed defect (fixed)


Reported by: arcfide Owned by: alexshinn
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: WG1 - Macros Keywords: let-syntax,modules


Let-syntax has known ambiguities in its behavior. We have the option of altering its semantics to correct this behavior, defining which behavior we intend, or removing let-syntax entirely. We could also leave this ambiguity in there. ModulesAndPackagesArcfide suggests that let-syntax be removed in favor of the module syntax.

Change History (3)

comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by arcfide

I do not believe it is a good idea to leave let-syntax with the ambiguous semantics that we currently have, especially considering that there are three different interpretations that are not clearly superior to one another. In order to fix this, we could specify a single interpretation, but this doesn't make sense given that there is no really better choice than the others. We could revert the splicing nature of let-syntax into an unsplicing form, but this removes an useful feature from let-syntax.

Regardless, since I do not believe we can leave the semantics as they are, if we fix let-syntax we will be breaking it in some fashion. This breaks backwards compatibility with some Scheme implementations. Given this, the clearer and more nicely defined semantics of the module syntax mentioned in ModulesAndPackagesArcfide seems to be a better approach, and provides the same expressiveness while being easier to use and less ambiguous. It also has the advantage of being a part of the module system.

comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by arcfide

I should also mention that strictly speaking, the module syntax is more expressive as a construct.

comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by cowan

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

WG1 chose to make let-syntax a lexical contour.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.