Re: [Scheme-reports] 5.3 Syntax Definitions

["Arthur A. Gleckler" <scheme@x>]

A better wording might have been:

  An internal definition or syntax definition must not define any identifier
  whose binding or lack of binding in surrounding code has already affected the
  expansion of preceding portions of the body, up to and including any undeferred the
  portions of the definition or syntax definition itself.

It looks like there's a word missing here.  Perhaps add "in" after "undeferred?"

I still find it confusing.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports