begin

[Jonathan A Rees <JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>]

    Date: Wed, 2 Apr 86 13:32 EST
    From: Kent M Pitman <KMP at SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>

    I didn't realize this idea of putting definitions in BEGIN was a serious 
    suggestion. 

Let me repeat myself.  I sent the message on April 1.  I hoped that the
<optional end> would cue people.  It was not a serious suggestion.

		I strongly oppose having either BEGIN or LET do this. The reason
    is that it makes it impossible to write code which wants to use these 
    primitives for other things and doesn't have additional implications that
    may be unwanted or may have implications in macros or program-writing programs
    that some programmer didn't count on.

Too late to get it out of LET and friends, I think.  Let's make BEGIN
the way to disallow define's, and leave the expansion of LET into
((LAMBDA ...) ...) as simple as it is.

    As a counter-proposal, how about a LOCALLY special form. 
     ie, (LOCALLY <definition>* <form>*)

This is sort of what John Ramsdell was suggesting.  It's also exists in
T and is written (LOCALE #F ...).  But I'll appeal to conservatism and
say that not only will there not be any agreement on adding or naming
this beast, but providing a special form especially for its benefit
gives legitimacy to local DEFINE which I don't think most people want.

J.