[plt-scheme] Re: to define, or to let

> ... The alleged advantage to programmers of a fixed order of evaluation is
> that even if they make a mistake and have an order dependency that they
> didn't intend, the program will still behave consistently.  If that consistent
> behavior seems to conform to the program's desired behavior, then the order
> dependency may be allowed to remain, unrecognized.  This is the real world
> consequence of the program having an unambiguous semantics - it's good because
> you get consistent behavior, but it's not all good: unfortunately, such a
> situation pretty much qualifies as a latent bug, or at best, fragility in the
> program. ... evaluation order the program has a well-defined behavior, even
> if it achieves that behavior partly "by accident".  Semantics is not usually
> concerned with the intent of the programmer, only with what the programmer
> actually ended up encoding in the program....

Sorry Anton, but you really shouldn't try to pass this crap off as fact, and
end up confusing folks who don¹t know any better.