Re: [Chicken-users] hygienic branch (progress report, sort of)

[felix winkelmann]

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Jim Ursetto <address@hidden> wrote:
> Possible bug?  Despite lambda being renamed in define's definition
> in expand.scm, it seems to break hygiene:
>
> (let ((lambda 3)) (define (foo x) x))
>

Hm... Yes, the expansion of lambda-bodies is pretty broken in several
ways. I have committed a change that may help for this particular
case, but the expansion of body-forms still uses the wrong syntactical
environment. I'll work on that.


cheers,
felix