On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:25 PM, John Clements <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> wrote: > > On May 20, 2011, at 1:39 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > >> >> >> Let me make my proposals (2 and 3) more precise because your response >> suggests they were too short. >> >> 1. We could make internal define the primary vehicle for definitions, i.e., >> not compile thru letrec. As far as I am concerned, your change to the >> language to allow defines in many more places has made letrec superfluous. > > Perhaps this goes without saying, but I'm hoping that if internal defines > don't expand into letrec any more, that they expand into some similar form > that has syntactically obvious scoping; I like the fact that the scope of > letrec-declared variables is delimited by the syntactic letrec term.
Yes, this is very important for Typed Racket and other tools that process expanded syntax. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
