From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Maciek Godek" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Me no understand scoping Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:21:42 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87r69ccaus.fsf@unknownlamer.org> <489074A9.1080508@wilsonjc.us> <49dd78620807310020i8b55067gd22f6ce361a04d7d@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1217532198 27303 80.91.229.12 (31 Jul 2008 19:23:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:23:18 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 31 21:24:08 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KOdkN-0005QI-Ko for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:23:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37542 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KOdjT-00089c-5s for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:22:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KOdia-0006xW-Vv for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:21:45 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KOdia-0006w8-19 for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:21:44 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38857 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KOdiZ-0006vt-RC for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:21:43 -0400 Original-Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.46.156]:14320) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KOdiZ-0001yE-M2 for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:21:43 -0400 Original-Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 9so357770ywk.66 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:21:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=AHECZVljddwDCMl3iM+hVXjD0aOOQVQAWyvuz7LeCcQ=; b=M1vzHyHkA6HHvDS4RHh4UNod1li2w9/ON5BMBFyKgXAEaoIEgrMJmwzqgqxCWvm8K1 9v2UtnsBwd2Ocxoqvzgggiy1gx9xV2YRZZ0OhjsAx4la4QZ1u1e3/RxE58zqfC7vsSn6 MhYe+aMBAm9jVWhBO/HRjzR0o+tH57n03kHPI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=RccMQvxVp2o2w2Yt8oV6wStPzdWSswZ0cVfDmofX6m+3z+SI/oaxbF2XxSQ5C3gk8h Q/8oYz31YMOpGXYc8gOtJnj1IDTM06upunUN9NuwYGt7r+7/p3s1rqhn2X9XTvAkFFpj SBsmq1yDsc9MNAy0XElSjgxOAtSsgu2ZJ01zg= Original-Received: by 10.142.174.8 with SMTP id w8mr3404660wfe.4.1217532102101; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:21:42 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.142.141.17 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:21:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <49dd78620807310020i8b55067gd22f6ce361a04d7d@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:6710 Archived-At: Neil Jerram : >> How to achieve this effect without using eval? >> (I've tried (+ . l) but it didn't work out) > > (apply + l) Correct :) Here comes another one: Suppose I want to define a variable, but I don't know its name -- it is contained in another variable. For example: (define a 'b) I want to assign a value to the symbol "contained" in a. (that would be b in this example). The problem is that "define" quotes its first argument. How to achieve it? >> Yeah, I always write additional layers so the code corresponds to the >> way I think. (Everybody does, don't they?) > > Yes! '(:-)