> `define' merely makes a new reference to an existing object. If you > want a copy, you must explicitly ask for one (though this could be > hidden by custom syntax). It would not be desirable for the language to > make copies automatically as part of the core `define' syntax. For one > thing, sometimes you don't want a copy. Sometimes you want shared > mutable objects.
It is curious that action of 'copy' really means the action of 'create a copy with different properties'. Shouldn't (string-copy "a") create another immutable string? Likewise, shouldn't (substring "abc" 1) return an immutable substring?
