Re: [stack] impure concatenativity: let without translation

On Mar 19, 2008, at 7:42 PM, rahul wrote:

> | 1. It is necessary to run the program in order to get the
> | definitions. This is obviously massively complicates, well,  
> everything
> | really.
>
> Once you have an expression tree, you are no longer waiting for the  
> symbol
> name to bind to .

Yes, this all can work if define is a special form. It doesn't work if  
define is a normal procedure though, which is, I thought, what you  
were suggesting. If that's not what you're suggesting, then '(define  
foo x y z)' or '\foo [x y z] define' is just a matter of taste  
perhaps. Even then, I'd still prefer the former, if for no other  
reason than it's apparent that 'define' is a special form.

- John