Re: stupid mail about letrec

[Marius Vollmer]

address@hidden (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:

> Sven Hartrumpf <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > >So chicken and MIT-scheme don't give you an error for the letrec
> > >expression that you quoted before?
> > 
> > No, all return 8 for (letrec ((a 2) (b (* a 4))) b).
> > Also mzscheme, bigloo, chez, sisc, scsh, gauche, gambit.
> > Only SCM behaves like guile.
> > This might make an interesting posting in comp.lang.scheme :-)
> 
> Yes, but it is an error nontheless.

However, I think it is an interesting extension.  Internal defines
would behave more 'natural' that way.  It's probably better to define
a new letrec* form, tho, instead of changing the definition of letrec.