Re: Embedded DEFINE forms

[Don Oxley <OXLEY%ti-csl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>]

I have generally avoided getting into these discussions as David has
represented our viewpoints very effectively.  However, I am becoming
concerned about what looks like a potentially destructive argument over
DEFINE.  

It seems to me that it is unlikely that very many users outside of the
aficionados at MIT and IU are likely to use embedded DEFINE at all -
except as they may have seen it in S&ICP.  I would hate to see
"outsiders" back away from using SCHEME because they see a religious war
going on within the community. 

My first suggestion is to leave it as we decided at Brandeis - based on
the notion that we had agreement (even if grudging) and we do not have
an agreement on a change.  Possibly better is Guy's suggestion to
leave it undefined (which I think is roughly equivalent to letting the
dominant dialect win).
 
I would be very hesitant for us to have to change PC Scheme in an
incompatible direction.  I'll hazard a guess that PCS is or is close to
becoming the most widely used Scheme today, so we are trying to be
somewhat careful about compatibility (although as I said, I doubt if
this will affect very many users).  Either leaving the position as it is
or making it undefined would leave PCS alone.  

Please, let's not let this become a divisive issue that hurts the spread
of Scheme to those who don't care about so technical an issue and
merely what to know what the langauge does and does not do.

        --Don
-------