On 3/11/23 10:58, Ihor Radchenko wrote:
> Zelphir Kaltstahl <zelphirkaltstahl@posteo.de> writes:
>
>> The issue is not with defining via (define ...) inside a (let ...) in Guile. It
>> is about importing macros at the time, when the body of the (let ...) is already
>> evaluated, which is at a later phase than macro expansion. By wrapping inside a
>> (let ...) org has moved the import to a later phase, which causes the macro
>> (let-values ...) to not be expanded.
> I see.
> AFAIK, Elisp does not have this problem.
>
>> As far as I know, (defun ...) and (defvar ...) are merely defining functions and
>> variables, not macros.
> Same for defmacro in Elisp.
>
>> My point is, that imports are usually global for sessions. But :var decided for
>> let-wrapping, moving them to a different place. Just like imports are usually
>> global, I would expect (define ...)s to be global in the session, unless I put
>> them inside a narrowed scope like a (let ...) myself. The org generated (let
>> ...) is invisible to the user and thus confusing, at least for GNU Guile.
>>
>> For other Schemes it probably all depends on how their phases of expansion and
>> evaluation work. I don't know enough about the Scheme standards, to tell,
>> whether Guile has the correct behavior here or whether there is a correct
>> behavior defined in the Scheme standards. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can
>> chime in to comment on that.
> When saying Guile I mean scheme. Remember that I am now looking from a
> more general perspective of other ob-* libraries.
>
> My conclusion so far is that it is not safe in ob-scheme to use
> let-binding. Other ob-* lisp implementations may be OK (at least,
> ob-emacs-lisp is OK).
>
> Now, the main question is whether it is safe to use `define' in all the
> scheme implementations. If it is, would you be interested in turning
> your personal fix into a patch for ob-scheme?

Hi!

I've created a patch, which I will attach to this e-mail.

Not sure it meets all formalities. For example it is not clear to me, whether I 
should add the "TINYCHANGE" at the bottom of my commit message.

Still need to get around to test at least some other Scheme as well, but I guess 
I should get started with the patch, otherwise I will procrastinate or be stuck 
in fear of formalities forever.

Let me know, if this an OK patch or what else needs to be done or what format is 
wrong, if any.

-- 
repositories: https://notabug.org/ZelphirKaltstahl