`begin` should not introduce new scope about llambda HOT 3 CLOSED

In R7RS Section 4.2.3 there seems to be two distinct forms of (begin): body/top-level and expression. Your first example is of the top-level form because it appears in a top-level context and its result is unused. The second example is an expression form because it's being used as an expression for initialising s

I think you're completely correct that we're not handling the body form correctly and that's a bug. However, I think the expression form should introduce a new scope based on the example (begin) macro in Section 7.3:

(define-syntax begin
  (syntax-rules ()
    ((begin exp ...)
      ((lambda () exp ...)))))

This will clearly create a new scope due to the enclosing (lambda).

Does this make sense? I'll look at fixing the top-level form if you don't have any objections.

from llambda.

Maybe you misread something? In second example, begin wrap an internal definition, its result is unused, so I think this usage of begin still belongs to body/top-level form.

from llambda.

Sorry you're right. I thought the second example was a variable delcaration because I missed the lambda shorthand form

from llambda.