Fix what looks to me as incorrect explanation of how identifier bindings are resolved. Could've used an alternative wording, but it'd make for a bigger diff:
> An identifier refers to a particular binding when the reference’s symbol and the identifier’s symbol are the same, and when the binding’s scope set is a subset of the reference’s scope set.
Was discovered in [this discussion](https://groups.google.com/d/msg/racket-users/9nVJxSVSdng/Yg28Bc8QBgAJ)
This commit adds a section to the reference to document how the expander
tracks information about local bindings, and it extends some
syntax-local functions to allow them to accept multiple definition
contexts instead of just one. In addition, it improves the documentation
on how first-class definition contexts interact with local-expand,
syntax-local-value, and syntax-local-bind-syntaxes, and it also
clarifies what it means to create a child definition context.
Add 'module-body-inside-context, 'module-body-outside-context, and
'module-body-context-simple? properties to the expansion of a
`module` form. These properties expose scopes that are used by
`module->namespace` and taht appear in marshaled bytecode.
Port `examples`, `interactions`, etc., to use the new `examples`
form of `scribble/examples`. The main intended effect is to ensure
that errors are produced by examples only as specifically
indicated.
After some expansions, a expression with the syntax property 'inferred-name of
'x is converted to one with ('x . 'x), so it's not useful to get the name of a
procedure. So we simplify the syntax property 'inferred-name to handle
these cases.
