[plt-scheme] about letrec and continuation : which behavior is correct ? and why ?

Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:05:23 -0700, Michael Vanier wrote:
>   
>> I wasn't aware that "letrec" was defined in terms of its let/set! 
>> semantics (though I knew that it could be so defined).  I had always 
>> assumed that it was a primitive.  To muddy the waters further, I believe 
>> that R6RS says that internal defines are actually translated into 
>> "letrec*", even though I don't know of any Scheme implementation that 
>> actually supports "letrec*".
>>     
>
> R6RS implementations provide `letrec*'.
>
> FWIW, PLT Scheme's `letrec' corresponds to R6RS's `letrec*'.
>
>   
>> One other gripe: I've read in some places that PLT Scheme has about 12 
>> fundamental special forms, but I can't find any documentation about 
>> which forms they are.
>>     
>
> http://docs.plt-scheme.org/reference/syntax-model.html#(part._fully-expanded)
>
>
> Matthew
>
>   
Excellent, thanks!

Mike