Re: A plea for local-eval in 2.0.4

[David Kastrup]

Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:

> Indeed, (local-eval '(set! x 5) <env>) is _not_ equivalent to
> (module-set! (current-module) 'x 5).

To clarify: I was thinking about

(local-eval '(set! x 5) <env>) vs
(local-eval '(module-set! (current-module) 'x 5) <env>)

> Assuming that `x' is not locally bound within the captured lexical
> environment, the first sets `x' in the module captured by
> (the-environment), i.e. the module where `x' would have been set if you
> had put (set! x 5) in place of (the-environment).  The second sets `x'
> in the (current-module) at the time of evaluation.

Yes, that would be what I would expect given the two local-eval calls
above.

-- 
David Kastrup