named let -> ???

[gls@Think.COM]

   Date: Thu, 1 Sep 88 14:38:14 edt
   From: hal@murren.ai.mit.edu (Hal Abelson)
   Reply-To: hal@zurich.ai.mit.edu


   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

Let's get this straight:

The name of it is called "`named let'".

The name of it actually is "named-let".

But it is called "named let".

And it actually *is* "(defmacro named-let (name bindings . body) ...)"?

--Guy