Hi Tim,
Tim Gesthuizen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I had a look today into the srfi-11 specificiation. It requires that the
> variables are bound to fresh locations so let me rephrase the bug:
>
>> (let ((a 1)
>> (b (let-values (((a . b) (values 2 3))
>> (c (begin (set! a 9) 4)))
>> (list a b c))))
>> (cons a b))
>
> Evaluates to `(1 9 (3) (4))` while it should evaluate to
> `(9 2 (3) (4))`.
I agree that this example indicates a bug in Guile's 'let-values'
implementation (which was written by Andy Wingo in August 2009), but I
disagree that it should evaluate to '(9 2 (3) (4)). I think that your
example should raise an error, because at the point where (set! a 9) is
found, neither of the 'a' variables are in scope.
Regards,
Mark
