>
>
>So it seems that my rule should only apply when scope has left the block
>statement
>(to deal with things like block([y],y); )
>
>Which entails a change to how meval evaluates block statements...
>
>Is this the beginning of the end?
>
Maybe it is not so bad... Inside the block statement the gensym seems to
have the
value property. When scope has left the block this is no longer true.
So my rule should only apply to gensyms which, besides being unbound, are
also not values.
Still things are becoming fragile...
Michel