Re: named let -> ???

[R. Kent Dybvig <dyb@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>]

	Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 14:38:14 edt
	From: Hal Abelson <hal@murren.ai.mit.edu>
	Subject: named let -> ???
	
	With acknowledgement to Lewis Carroll's well-known distinctions--
	
	Since named let is already called named let, and we have already
	agreed to optionally keep the current syntax, which calls the name of
	named let a named form of let, why don't we just name it named-let, to
	minimize the confusion?
	
	-- Hal

The name "named-let" has many of the same problems as the named form of
"let", so it would be senseless to make this change.  Gerry proposed that
George and I pick a name.  I suggested "recur" as the name, and George
tells me that "recur" is his choice as well.  So please, let's just plan
to add "recur", leave the named form of "let", and then let's get on to
other problems.

Kent