[racket-dev] `letrec' and continuations

At Fri, 20 May 2011 11:03:04 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> > I like the idea of adjusting the semantics of internal definitions and
> > leaving `letrec' alone.
> 
> While this seems like a nice change, how does it interact with
> internal syntax definitions?  If there are internal syntax
> definitions, do we fall back to `letrec-syntaxes+values'?

Good question. Yes, I think an internal syntax definition would have to
be treated like a definition that refers to the last binding in the set
of definitions.