On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:29 -0400, Swaroop Sridhar wrote: > So, this change means that > > (define f ...) is a let form
Yes, except that it does not introduce a new, lexically nested scope when it appears at top level. > (define (f x) ... ) is a letrec form right? Yes, which is the way the derived form is now specified; it just hasn't propagated to the web site yet. > I have no problem with this interpretation. Good! How much problem do you anticipate with implementing the change? :-) shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
