Re: [PATCH] Implement `the-environment' and `local-eval' in evaluator

[David Kastrup]

Peter TB Brett <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> * I still wouldn't be surprised if `local-eval' does the wrong thing if
>>>   (current-module) is different from what it was when the associated
>>>   `primitive-eval' was called.
>>
>> Before anyone even _defines_ what the "right thing" would be, there is
>> little point in worrying about this.  I don't think that `local-eval'
>> 1.8 documented any behavior for this case (well, it did not document any
>> behavior for a lot of cases).
>>
>> So it probably makes sense to look afterwards what will happen without
>> special precautions, and unless that is spectacularly useless or
>> inconsistent, call it the "right thing" by definition.
>
> Maybe it makes even more sense (at this stage) to state that the
> behaviour in this case is undefined?

In my opinion it does not make sense at this stage to state anything.
Declaring the behavior as being undefined is premature when further work
might discover that it makes eminent sense to define it in a particular
way.

-- 
David Kastrup