Re: [BUG] Inconsistent global/local :var assignments in ob-* for lisps and non-lisps (was: org-babel guile source block bug in handling multiple values)

[Zelphir Kaltstahl <zelphirkaltstahl@posteo.de>]

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?

Sure! Would need to familiarize myself with with process of doing that, but why not.

I guess it would be a safer bet to await, whether the patch is what the general 
solution should be. Or would a patch be good to have, regardless of whether the 
official implementation changes or not, so that others can apply it perhaps, 
instead of putting something in their personal init file?

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