At Fri, 20 May 2011 16:39:23 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > 2. The semantics for internal defines would be more Algol like, meaning your > example would immediately behave like let and thus be fast.
Ok, I see how that's a better way of saying what I agree with (i.e., what I think Robby suggested). > 3. As far as letrec is concerned, we can make it 'expensive' I see no reason to change `letrec'. Fixing internal definitions is the goal; I didn't see (until Robby's suggestion) that fixing internal definitions doesn't necessarily require a change to `letrec'. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
