[racket-dev] `letrec' and continuations

From: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (samth at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Fri May 20 17:28:44 EDT 2011

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 5:25 PM, John Clements
<clements at brinckerhoff.org> wrote:
> On May 20, 2011, at 1:39 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>> Let me make my proposals (2 and 3) more precise because your response suggests they were too short.
>> 1. We could make internal define the primary vehicle for definitions, i.e., not compile thru letrec. As far as I am concerned, your change to the language to allow defines in many more places has made letrec superfluous.
> Perhaps this goes without saying, but I'm hoping that if internal defines don't expand into letrec any more, that they expand into some similar form that has syntactically obvious scoping; I like the fact that the scope of letrec-declared variables is delimited by the syntactic letrec term.

Yes, this is very important for Typed Racket and other tools that
process expanded syntax.
sam th
samth at ccs.neu.edu

Posted on the dev mailing list.