Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > If anybody has strong objections, we need to hear them! > > > The current specification states that the identifier(s) on the left-hand > side of DEFINE are incomplete until the body of the DEFINE has been > processed. > > This definition is necessary for the type-defining keywords, but it is > inconsistent with the way that other languages specify identifier > binding. In particular, in > > (let ((ast (f ast))) ...) > > the /ast/ on the RHS is the one from the environment that *encloses* the > LET form.
So, this change means that (define f ...) is a let form (define (f x) ... ) is a letrec form right? I have no problem with this interpretation. Swaroop. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
