Re: Reintroducing old `defined?'

[Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@nada.kth.se>]

Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com> writes:

> Loading this file with R5RS's "load" function would give the variable
> `first' the value #f, and the variable `second' the value #t, since
> replacing the two defined? invocations with `nonny' would be an error
> in the first case, but not in the second.  (I think R5RS doesn't
> really spell this out, but it's consistent with the way Guile's `load'
> works, and those of most other Scheme systems as well.)

(This is of course good when we load interpreted code, but I feel it
could be a too strict requirement for compiled code...)

> When people talk about (bound? ID) being a function, they're always
> thinking about the "current environment".  I think this term is really
> dangerous, and I'm trying to stamp it out.  When you're interacting
> with Guile, there *is* a current environment --- it's the one the
> definitions you type go into --- but it's a facet of the REPL, not of
> the language.

Yes, my guess is that it (boundp) comes from interlisp which had
dynamic binding, where it would be more meaningful.

But note that I talked about renaming old `defined?' into `bound?'.
Old `defined?' has taken an optional second environment argument for a
while now.


I'll implement this change as soon as I get time.

/mdj