[e-lang] Fixes wanted: Auditor exprs break object reconstruction and auditing

[Kevin Reid]

On Oct 4, 2006, at 16:16, Mark Miller wrote:
> On 10/4/06, Kevin Reid <kpreid at mac.com> wrote:
>> It would be equivalent to state that auditor exprs are hidden, and
>> furthermore that their names may not /appear/ to be reused, much as
>> we do in cases of apparently reversed scoping (e.g. 'for'). This
>> seems cleaner to me at the moment, because the semantics minus
>> "confusing scope restrictions" then do not have the original problem.
>
> Yes, this is equivalent. I have no opinion as to which is more easily
> understood, and so am happy with this way of explaining the
> restriction. Any objections to this proposed restriction?

If you're asking me, I have no objection. I now think this is the  
right thing to do.

-- 
Kevin Reid                            <http://homepage.mac.com/kpreid/>