Eli Barzilay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you're suggesting: > > (letrec loop ([x ...]) body ...)
That isn't really my preference, but it would be an improvement. > then I don't understand how it can work in any intuitive way. Worse, > I find it very common to write > > (define (tree-foo foo tree) > (let loop ([tree tree]) > ...)) > > which breaks if it was using a letrec. I'm probably being dense. Why would it break? If you think I'm suggesting a "named letrec" should expand into something that letrec-binds `tree' (rather than just `loop'), then you're wrong. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
