Per Bothner scripsit: > OTOH, it would be nice to allow define in the middle of a body, to avoid > having to add too much "let-nesting": > > (define (foo) > (define t1 ....) > (bar t1) > (define t2 (baz t1)) > (whatever t1 t2))
That would be a pretty big change, from LETREC* semantics to LET* semantics, or are you still allowed the limited kind of forward reference that internal DEFINE currently allows? If so, I think the scope would be hard to understand. -- John Cowan [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan And now here I was, in a country where a right to say how the country should be governed was restricted to six persons in each thousand of its population. For the nine hundred and ninety-four to express dissatisfaction with the regnant system and propose to change it, would have made the whole six shudder as one man, it would have been so disloyal, so dishonorable, such putrid black treason. --Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
