Re: [Scheme-reports] 4.2.2. binding constructs

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Andy Wingo scripsit:

> The `let' documentation denotes BODY as "a sequence of one or more
> expressions".  This does not permit definitions.
> 
> Similarly for letrec and letrec*.  

Fixed.

> Perhaps also there should be clarity
> regarding the validity of the following program:
> 
>   (let* ((x 1)
>          (x (+ x 1)))
>     x)

It's fairly silly, but not illegal.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan@x
SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should
be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
witch is dead."  --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports