<div dir="ltr"><div>As far as I see it, the dilambda solution is not transparent in the sense that</div><div>in order to access a variable "var1" you need to "call" it like</div><div>(var1)</div><div>.. so to access and call a function you'd need to do ((var2) my-arg)</div><div><br></div><div>Not sure the mindset around srfi-212 but at least for me seems an elegant</div><div>way for enabling redefinition of variables/functions of some module and have</div><div>its changes reflected on the places where this module was imported.<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 16:08, <<a href="mailto:bil@ccrma.stanford.edu">bil@ccrma.stanford.edu</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I think dilambda gives that functionality, at the cost<br>
of some additional parentheses (which at least make it<br>
explicit that something not-entirely-simple is going on):<br>
<br>
(define-macro (alias var1 var2)<br>
`(define ,var1 (dilambda<br>
(lambda ()<br>
,var2)<br>
(lambda (val)<br>
(set! ,var2 val)))))<br>
<br>
(define lt (inlet 'var1 32))<br>
(alias var2 (lt 'var1))<br>
<br>
(display (var2)) (newline)<br>
(set! (var2) 12)<br>
(display lt) (newline)<br>
(display (var2)) (newline)<br>
<br>
I don't like the idea that setting one apparently simple<br>
variable secretly changes another. srfi-212 appears to me<br>
to be yet another attempt to kludge around bugs in standard<br>
scheme's hygienic macros, while disregarding the damage<br>
this does outside those macros.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>