Re: T -> Scheme

[rees@decwrl.ARPA (Jonathan Rees)]

Sorry, I didn't make the message very clear.  Since it was aimed at
T-Discussion, the syntax of the example in question:

    (let ((x ...))
      (define y ...)
      (define z ...))

was T syntax, not MIT Scheme syntax, as you took it to be.  There was
some MIT Scheme syntax in the rest of the message, where I tried to
explain how you'd implement this T expression in MIT Scheme.  Of course
I would be confused if I thought that in MIT Scheme the expression
would create bindings visible outside the LET.  But in T (and in Scheme
311), it does, and sometimes you want that.  The problem is how to
express the same thing in MIT Scheme.

Jonathan