small changes

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

    Date: 24 Mar 1986  12:54 EST (Mon)
    From: Bill Rozas <JINX%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU at XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>

    While I agree that it should have been like this, I thought that the
    only reason to add the more complicated defines was for compatibility
    with MIT-Scheme.  MIT-Scheme has not changed, and there would be a big
    argument over it (at least as far as the student system is concerned).
    It seems useless to add it then if it is going to be incompatible
    anyway.

No, I see other reasons to have (define (...) ...).  The first is that
it's used in S&ICP - notably, with the semantics I want (see page 303).
The second is that some people like to use it; in particular, myself,
and most T users, I think.  And if it exists, I think the documentation
would be clearer and simpler if it were the other way.