[racket-dev] `letrec' and continuations

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