MS> Can you explain to me why the above should lead to a different MS> result? CLISP's output is exactly what I expected it to be: MS> (setq bar 23) MS> (defmacro foo () bar) ; this means (foo) expands to the value of BAR Holger> Isn't this meant to mean to refer to the current binding of bar, which Holger> in this case happens to be 23 ? What do you mean by "current"? BAR is supposed to refer to the binding introduced by (setq bar 23), which is the lexically enclosing one. The question is: when is the binding resolved? MS> (defun baz () (foo)) ; this therefore expands to (defun baz () 23) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is the crux of the matter: Does the binding get resolved here? MS> (baz) => 23 ; indeed MS> (setq baz 42) ; the definition of FOO is unchanged Holger> (I guess you mean bar, not baz). Yes. Holger> You are right, the definition of FOO is unchanged, it still Holger> refers to the current binding of bar - which now happens to be Holger> 42. Sure, but I expanded FOO before I changed the binding. I suspect your CL actually processes the forms in some weird order. In any case, I strongly doubt that the CL standard mandates the behavior you describe. -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla