[racket-dev] `letrec' and continuations

From: Shriram Krishnamurthi (sk at cs.brown.edu)
Date: Fri May 20 19:46:20 EDT 2011

> I see no reason to change `letrec'. Fixing internal definitions is the
> goal; I didn't see (until Robby's suggestion) that fixing internal
> definitions doesn't necessarily require a change to `letrec'.

This will also have the salutary effect of encouraging the use of
internal definitions, which I think is a nicer programming style


Posted on the dev mailing list.