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

[Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>]

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.


Remember: a tree died to settle this point.