[plt-scheme] to define, or to let

From: Paul Schlie (schlie at comcast.net)
Date: Sun Mar 21 14:19:51 EST 2004

> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> ... While I am personally opposed to left-to- right LET and LETREC, I feel
>  that implementors should have the freedom to implement them that way, as
> extensions.

Out of curiosity, what possible value can be derived from continuing to
enable implementations to ambiguously evaluate of code like:

 (let [(a (read in)) (b (read in))]
      (list a b))


 (list (read in) (read in))

Personally I see none.

(If it's truly without virtue, the loophole should likely be closed).


Posted on the users mailing list.