[racket-dev] `letrec' and continuations

At Fri, 20 May 2011 16:39:23 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> 2. The semantics for internal defines would be more Algol like, meaning your 
> example would immediately behave like let and thus be fast. 

Ok, I see how that's a better way of saying what I agree with (i.e.,
what I think Robby suggested).

> 3. As far as letrec is concerned, we can make it 'expensive'

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'.