At Fri, 20 May 2011 11:03:04 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > I like the idea of adjusting the semantics of internal definitions and > > leaving `letrec' alone. > > While this seems like a nice change, how does it interact with > internal syntax definitions? If there are internal syntax > definitions, do we fall back to `letrec-syntaxes+values'?
Good question. Yes, I think an internal syntax definition would have to be treated like a definition that refers to the last binding in the set of definitions. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev