Re: Testing dangerous change in tomorrow's snapshot (was: Re: Guile segv)

[Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@mit.edu>]

jimb@red-bean.com writes:
> 
> Yes, problem 3 is the most important problem to solve.  I was just
> perpetuating a horribly nit-picky and meaningless debate about the
> name it should have.  :)
> 
> > The R5RS doesn't address problem 3.  R5RS' interaction-environment is
> > a problem 2 environment.  Except for the bindings it imports and
> > re-exports from the scheme-report-environment, it defines it's own
> > "implementation-defined" bindings.  If the user would redefine these,
> > he would influence the interaction-environment as seen by others as
> > well.
> 
> Hmm, have I misread R5RS?
> 
> I thought the whole point of (interaction-environment) was that it
> returned exactly the environment you were interacting with --- the
> definitions you typed at the repl are here, etc.  So it corresponds
> exactly to what we want here.
> 
> I'm printing out a copy of R5RS right now, and I'll check, and post
> again if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's what it is.
> 
> If, in the future, R5RS users are going to get a handle on this thing
> by calling (interaction-environment), then it should have a name that
> matches that.
> 


You are right about the point of (interaction-environment) (at least
by my reading of R5RS), however, IMO, there is no reason to name a
module after it. In fact, I think it is actively bad to do so, as
(interaction-environment) should give you a handle for the current
module, IMO, not for any specific predetermined one. If you
(define-module (whatever)) inside the REPL, (interaction-environment)
should give you a handle on the environment you are then in.

 - Maciej