--- This message is a formal comment which was submitted to [EMAIL PROTECTED], following the requirements described at: http://www.r6rs.org/process.html ---
Submitter: Mike Sperber Email address: sperber at deinprogramm dot de Issue type: Defect Priority: Minor Component: Base library Report version: 5.92 Summary: Rename named `let' Issue: The fact that the convenient syntax for writing recursive procedures is part of `let' is a long-standing wart in the syntax of Scheme. It is unintuitive (it expands into `letrec', rather than a simpler form of `let), difficult to explain to newcomers to Scheme, and disconcerting to the casual reader. How to fix: If the syntax needs to be integrated with one of the standard binding forms, it should be `letrec', not `let'. However, it would be much better to rename named `let' to something else such as `rec', `recur' or `recursive'. As this would break many existing Scheme programs, the report might introduce the separate form, and, to ease the transition, keep named `let' for now, either putting it into a separate library alongside (r6rs mutable-pairs) or at least marking it as deprecated and likely to disappear in a future revision of the report. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
