Re: A plea for local-eval in 2.0.4

[Mark H Weaver]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Indeed, (local-eval '(set! x 5) <env>) is _not_ equivalent to
>> (module-set! (current-module) 'x 5).
>
> To clarify: I was thinking about
>
> (local-eval '(set! x 5) <env>) vs
> (local-eval '(module-set! (current-module) 'x 5) <env>)

Unless `module-set!' or `current-module' have been rebound within the
lexical environment <env>, the following two forms are equivalent:

  (module-set! (current-module) 'x 5)
  (local-eval '(module-set! (current-module) 'x 5) <env>)

Therefore, my analysis covers the case you were thinking about as well.

     Mark


>> Assuming that `x' is not locally bound within the captured lexical
>> environment, the first sets `x' in the module captured by
>> (the-environment), i.e. the module where `x' would have been set if you
>> had put (set! x 5) in place of (the-environment).  The second sets `x'
>> in the (current-module) at the time of evaluation.
>
> Yes, that would be what I would expect given the two local-eval calls
> above.