[plt-scheme] to define, or to let

From: Bradd W. Szonye (bradd+plt at szonye.com)
Date: Sun Mar 21 18:49:03 EST 2004

Felix Klock's PLT scheme proxy wrote:
> I don't think that Bradd was referring to giving the implementation
> more freedom, even if that was the original motivation for leaving so
> much unspecified in RnRS.
> His essay, to me, seemed to promote the idea of the code directly
> stating that there do not exist sequencing dependencies in the
> expressions, e.g. by the programmer choosing to use LET instead of
> LET* ....

That's correct. Anton's longer essay explains the issue in more detail,
and I essentially agree with everything he wrote.
Bradd W. Szonye

Posted on the users mailing list.