[racket] Nested scope in D vs Racket

I don't consider this a flaw in the language. How are we going to write a
recursive function when not allowing
(define (x arg) expr-possibly-calling-x-recursively)?
Not by a Y-combinator I hope.

I think the following is not too difficult to explain to beginning
programmers.

In (define (x arg) ...) x is masked in ...
In (let ((x ...)) body) x is NOT masked in ...
In (letrec ((x ...)) body) x is masked in ...

Jos

> -----Original Message-----
> From: users-bounces at racket-lang.org 
> [mailto:users-bounces at racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Felleisen
> Sent: 21 August 2010 17:43
> To: Shriram Krishnamurthi
> Cc: users at racket-lang.org; Eduardo Cavazos
> Subject: Re: [racket] Nested scope in D vs Racket
> 
> 
> Okay, that's the one thing why I dislike local and internal define. 
> But should we really throw out the idea of nested x defs for 
> this one flaw? 
> 
>