Re: [Chicken-users] Binding identifiers with set!

[Dale Jordan]

> >>>> foo
> > Error: unbound variable: foo
> >>>> (set! foo 1)
> >>>> foo
> > 1
> >>>>
> >
> > This clearly doesn't jive with R5RS (5.2.1):
> >
> From a language-lawyerly point of view, "it would be an error" allows
> an implementation to do whatever it likes. So this is strictly speaking
> not a violation of R5RS.
>

No need to become lawyerly; The final paragraph of R5RS (5.2.1) clearly
sanctions Chicken's behavior.  I would prefer it were at least an option to
require "define".  Documenting the behavior is also good.  (C/C++ standards
require documentation of the innumerable things left to the implementation
to decide.  Schemes should do the same.)

Dale Jordan